On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> In other news, I looked into the cause --- tried to make
> datasource_get_next_token() do one more loop in the place where
> currently it does 'return if at_start_of_suffix()' --- but that didn't
> fix the truncation...
Indeed, that won't fi
In other news, I looked into the cause --- tried to make
datasource_get_next_token() do one more loop in the place where
currently it does 'return if at_start_of_suffix()' --- but that didn't
fix the truncation...
In the meantime, I tweaked a test to make it XFail (r1068798). From
a quick glance
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:42:20 +0100:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > The experimental code is svn_diff_diff4_2(); AFAIK svn_diff_diff4() is
> > as stable as ever.
>
> I have no objections on adding such an annotation. However, from where
> I'm s
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 21:47:12 -0600:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 21:47:12 -0600:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100:
> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> >> wrote:
> >> > Could you have a look? (attached)
> >>
> >>
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100:
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Could you have a look? (attached)
>>
>> Nice. It looks good to me (haven't tested it, just looked at the code;
>> I
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Could you have a look? (attached)
>
> Nice. It looks good to me (haven't tested it, just looked at the code;
> I assume it passes with trunk?)
>
Thanks, yes, r1068749.
While
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 02:47:50 +0100:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 14:04:07 +0100:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 02:47:50 +0100:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 14:04:07 +0100:
> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> >> wrote:
> >> > May I suggest that, if this code is to
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 14:04:07 +0100:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > May I suggest that, if this code is to be released, then you validate
>> > its correctnss? For example, a minima
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 14:04:07 +0100:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > May I suggest that, if this code is to be released, then you validate
> > its correctnss? For example, a minimal regression test that is written
> > to record trunk's pre-b
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan,
>
> I'm concerned about this change: on the one hand, it's untested and
> no one claims to be understanding the code; on the other hand, it
> doesn't exactly parallel the diff3 change:
>
> specifically, the last hunk of the diff3 patch
12 matches
Mail list logo
