Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-20 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > I see all those easy +1’s on other operating systems... > I assume you all reproduced the problem on Windows??? > > Maybe also on actual hardware instead of a VM (with a VM harddisk emulation > infrastructure with different powerfail handling

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-18 Thread Branko Čibej
On 18.05.2013 11:52, Bert Huijben wrote: > We do this because *some of* the callers want this behavior... But all others > get the same pain as well. > > And then the rename function can just perform a dumb file copy without any > precautions when we are crossing a disk boundary. > > > This behav

RE: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-18 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com] > Sent: zaterdag 18 mei 2013 10:52 > To: Subversion Development > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS > > On 18.05.2013 08:55, Bert Huijben wrote: > > I

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-18 Thread Branko Čibej
On 18.05.2013 08:55, Bert Huijben wrote: > I see all those easy +1’s on other operating systems... > I assume you all reproduced the problem on Windows??? What the blazes are you going on about, Bert? Justin's +1 was for putting repository integrity before performance. That has nothing at all to d

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-18 Thread Bert Huijben
I see all those easy +1’s on other operating systems... I assume you all reproduced the problem on Windows??? Maybe also on actual hardware instead of a VM (with a VM harddisk emulation infrastructure with different powerfail handling)? I still see no prove that the symptoms are not in this c

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > Yes, this will be good improvement anyway, but I think repository > integrity should be first goal. > +1! =P -- justin

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Ivan Zhakov
t; Subject: Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> wrote: >> > On 05/17/2013 10:55 AM, Philip Martin wrote: >> >> Branko Čibej writes: >> >> >> >>&

RE: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com] > Sent: vrijdag 17 mei 2013 17:03 > To: C. Michael Pilato > Cc: Philip Martin; Branko Čibej; dev@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS > >

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Ben Reser
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > We should put this into 1.8.0 but I don't think it is a destabilizing > change so we don't need to restart the soak. Agreed, the worst thing that could result from this change is that it hurts performance on Windows. I'm inclined to let thi

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 05/17/2013 10:55 AM, Philip Martin wrote: >> Branko Čibej writes: >> >>> On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 20

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 05/17/2013 10:55 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: >>> --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) >>> +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 2013 >>> @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ Candidate changes: >>>Votes: >>>

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: >> --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 2013 >> @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ Candidate changes: >>Votes: >> +1: stefan2 (for 1.8.1) >> >> +* r1483781 >> +

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Branko Čibej
On 17.05.2013 15:58, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: >>> --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) >>> +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 2013 >>> @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ Candidate cha

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: >> --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 2013 >> @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ Candidate changes: >>Votes: >> +1: stefan2 (for 1

Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

2013-05-17 Thread Branko Čibej
On 17.05.2013 15:32, i...@apache.org wrote: > --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original) > +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Fri May 17 13:32:56 2013 > @@ -124,6 +124,14 @@ Candidate changes: >Votes: > +1: stefan2 (for 1.8.1) > > +* r1483781 > + Fix FSFS repository corruption o