On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>
>
> I have added an XFail core regression test to svnlook_tests.py. When
> that is fixed we should be able to revert r1293375 and have the Ruby
> tests PASS. We could revert r1293375 now if the Ruby tests have a
> mechanism to mark tests X
Joe Swatosh writes:
> What is the best way to proceed? Revert the Hyrum's commit of my patch
> that hid the change in behavior? Can you (or someone else) write a
> test that makes direct assertions about this behavior, so that the
> only test of it isn't hidden away in the Ruby bindings tests? An
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> Joe Swatosh writes:
>>>
>>> I don't understand why prop_mod is no longer being set.
>>
>> Because replay is no longer setting it?
>
> Does that mean the
Philip Martin writes:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> I'm not aware of a deliberate change to core Subversion behaviour.
>> Property deletes should still be reported as property mods by the
>> Subversion libraries.
>
> Ah! There is a non-Ruby bug. Repository with property delete:
>
> svnadmin crea
Philip Martin writes:
> I'm not aware of a deliberate change to core Subversion behaviour.
> Property deletes should still be reported as property mods by the
> Subversion libraries.
Ah! There is a non-Ruby bug. Repository with property delete:
svnadmin create repo
svn -mm import repo/format f
Joe Swatosh writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Joe Swatosh writes:
>>
>> I don't understand why prop_mod is no longer being set.
>
> Because replay is no longer setting it?
Does that mean the core Subversion libraries have changed? I don't do
Ruby but it prop
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> Before r1293375, the node that represented 'diff1.txt' in this walk
>> had the "prop_mod" member set true. After r1293375, the "prop_mod"
>> member for this node is false. Since the implementation of
>> Svn::Info#get
Joe Swatosh writes:
> Before r1293375, the node that represented 'diff1.txt' in this walk
> had the "prop_mod" member set true. After r1293375, the "prop_mod"
> member for this node is false. Since the implementation of
> Svn::Info#get_diff_recurse checks "prop_mod" member before attempting
> to
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the
>> node anymore?
>
> The property delete is still reported as a property change by the
> Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.chan
Joe Swatosh writes:
> I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the
> node anymore?
The property delete is still reported as a property change by the
Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.change_file_prop
in the Ruby bindings, see my first email in this thr
Joe Swatosh wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:27:13 -0700:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh
> >>
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On F
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, M
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>>
>>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
>>> wrote:
The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
>>> trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, whic
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
>> trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
>> property diffs are reported during rep
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
> trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
> property diffs are reported during replay. As far as I can tell this is
> a problem with the bin
The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
property diffs are reported during replay. As far as I can tell this is
a problem with the bindings rather than the core Subversion code.
The test deletes
19 matches
Mail list logo
