Stefan Sperling wrote:
>Prabhu, any news on this? I would like to see this feature committed.
>Is there anything I could do to help move it along?
>
Thank you Stefan...
I am working on this closely. I have been getting great help from Julian and
am working on his last suggestions and improvi
Julian Foad wrote:
>What holds me back from committing it is lack of a test that at least
>exercises the 'keep-going' functionality (that is, reports on another
>revision after reporting a failed revision) and lack of evidence that
>it has been tested and found to work as expected in a few diff
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Prabhu, any news on this? I would like to see this feature committed.
> Is there anything I could do to help move it along?
>
> Julian, do you think Prabhu's latest patch is ready for commit,
> provided Prabhu or I take care of any unaddressed concerns in
> follow-up patc
Prabhu, any news on this? I would like to see this feature committed.
Is there anything I could do to help move it along?
Julian, do you think Prabhu's latest patch is ready for commit,
provided Prabhu or I take care of any unaddressed concerns in
follow-up patches? Or would committing it to trunk
Thanks for this version, Prabhu. It looks much better. Still a few more
points...
Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote:
> On 12/20/2012 11:25 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> The output for a failed revision depends on whether --keep-going was
>> passed. With --keep-going you print a "* Error verifying revis
On 12/20/2012 11:25 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Hi Prabhu.
I have now looked in detail at your patch and tried using it. I think I have
found an inconsistency and a serious problem.
The output for a failed revision depends on whether --keep-going was passed. With
--keep-going you print a "* Erro
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 17:55:19 +:
> Please write responses to the points I mentioned in this email. You
> don't have to agree with all of them, but I want to know whether you
> agree or disagree or don't understand or aren't able to do what
> I suggest, or if I misunderstoo
Hi Prabhu.
I have now looked in detail at your patch and tried using it. I think I have
found an inconsistency and a serious problem.
The output for a failed revision depends on whether --keep-going was passed.
With --keep-going you print a "* Error verifying revision 2." line; without it
yo
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 13:24:46 +:
> That sounds good. I was surprised to learn that the progress
> notifications ("* Verified...") were already going to stderr.
Probably because "* Dumped revision %ld." goes to stderr, and verify
shares code with dump.
On 12/20/2012 08:24 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> The way I understood C-Mike's suggestion was that all the "* Verified
> revision R" and "* Error verifying revision R" messages (and probably the
> final summary line too) would go to stdout, whereas all the "svnadmin:
> Exx: ..." messages would go t
Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote on 14 December 2012:
> On 12/10/2012 08:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Prabhu Gnana Sundar
>>
>>> This patch is a follow up of the long discussion we had in thread [1].
>>
>> Please will you summarize the issues that were raised in the previous
>> discussion and how y
> Index: subversion/libsvn_repos/dump.c
> ===
> --- subversion/libsvn_repos/dump.c(revision 1420101)
> +++ subversion/libsvn_repos/dump.c(working copy)
> @@ -1413,19 +1452,31 @@
>void *cancel_edit_baton;
>svn_fs
Thanks Daniel,
I have worked on the suggestions that you gave and am attaching the new
patch and log message with this mail. Please share your thoughts
Thanks and regards
Prabhu
On 12/10/2012 08:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
On 12/10/2012 08:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Prabhu Gnana Sundar
This patch is a follow up of the long discussion we had in thread [1]. This
patch implements a new switch "--keep-going" to svnadmin verify.
If "--keep-going" is set(True), svnadmin verify would continue to run
till verifying all t
Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 14:45:57 +:
> I scanned quickly through your patch and I noticed one place where you
> declare a local function without the 'static' keyword. I expect this should
> give a warning when you compile it, so please will you compile with and
> without yo
> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> ===
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py(revision 1411074)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py(working copy)
> @@ -1835,6 +1835,114 @@
>
Prabhu Gnana Sundar
> This patch is a follow up of the long discussion we had in thread [1]. This
> patch implements a new switch "--keep-going" to svnadmin verify.
>
> If "--keep-going" is set(True), svnadmin verify would continue to run
> till verifying all the revisions i.e, it would not sto
17 matches
Mail list logo
