Hi Stefan,
Stefan Sperling writes:
> > "tools" and "subversion" are merely directory names. All I'm saying is
> > this: I don't want packaging/ distribution overheads for such a simple
> > package; users should be able to use whatever Subversion-interop tools
> > that other developers build by jus
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:48:06PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Stefan Sperling writes:
> > I don't really mind where svnrdump lives.
> > The community is committed to supporting both the tools/ and subversion/
> > directories.
>
> "tools" and "subversion" are merely direct
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Sperling writes:
> I don't really mind where svnrdump lives.
> The community is committed to supporting both the tools/ and subversion/
> directories.
"tools" and "subversion" are merely directory names. All I'm saying is
this: I don't want packaging/ distribution overheads for
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 02:43:37PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:59:49 +0530:
> > Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > > Would svnrdump benefit if, once 1.7.x branched and RC's start being
> > > rolled, it were subjected to a more relaxed backporting polic
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 19:15:16 +0530:
> I have no interest in politics, and I don't want to speculate why
> svnmucc isn't built by `make` by default.
Because it lives in tools/.
> I would like to keep this
> discussion focused purely on the benefits and trade-offs of
Hi,
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> I agree that svnrdump does something very useful and that it belongs in
> Subversion. But I'm not sure whether it's mature enough today to belong
> in subversion/svnrdump/.
>
> svnrdump is still young (less than, how much, 6 months old?). The code
> still needs a bit
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:59:49 +0530:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > Would svnrdump benefit if, once 1.7.x branched and RC's start being
> > rolled, it were subjected to a more relaxed backporting policy?
> >
> > If so, we might consider moving it to tools/ for 1.7.x, with
Hi,
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Would svnrdump benefit if, once 1.7.x branched and RC's start being
> rolled, it were subjected to a more relaxed backporting policy?
>
> If so, we might consider moving it to tools/ for 1.7.x, with intent to
> move it back to subversion/svnrdump/ for 1.8.x (as soon as
[C. Michael Pilato]
> It's not about the timing, really. We don't introduce new features in patch
> releases. Now, that said, svnmucc isn't really part of our core product, so
> perhaps it doesn't fall into this restriction. I wonder what other devs
> think about this?
It's the sort of thing I
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 18:35:32 +0200:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:27:35 -0400:
> > On 09/24/2010 08:46 AM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
> > > Is it too late to backport it for the upcoming release?
> >
> > It's not about the timing, really. We don't introduce
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:27:35 -0400:
>> On 09/24/2010 08:46 AM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
>> > Is it too late to backport it for the upcoming release?
>>
>> It's not about the timing, really. We don't introduce new feat
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:27:35 -0400:
> On 09/24/2010 08:46 AM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
> > Is it too late to backport it for the upcoming release?
>
> It's not about the timing, really. We don't introduce new features in patch
> releases. Now, that said, svnmucc isn't real
On 09/24/2010 08:46 AM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
> Is it too late to backport it for the upcoming release?
It's not about the timing, really. We don't introduce new features in patch
releases. Now, that said, svnmucc isn't really part of our core product, so
perhaps it doesn't fall into this restrict
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 05:24 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/23/2010 04:20 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone remember the issue number around adding line cont
On 09/23/2010 05:24 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 09/23/2010 04:20 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does anyone remember the issue number around adding line continuation
>>> for property setting in svnmucc?
>>>
>>> I'm hoping th
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 04:20 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone remember the issue number around adding line continuation
>> for property setting in svnmucc?
>>
>> I'm hoping that it'll get implemented so that I can use it to update
On 09/23/2010 04:20 PM, Geoff Rowell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone remember the issue number around adding line continuation
> for property setting in svnmucc?
>
> I'm hoping that it'll get implemented so that I can use it to update
> externals when creating branches. I wanted to check on it, but
Hi,
Does anyone remember the issue number around adding line continuation
for property setting in svnmucc?
I'm hoping that it'll get implemented so that I can use it to update
externals when creating branches. I wanted to check on it, but I don't
remember the issue number.
--
Geoff Rowell
geoff.
18 matches
Mail list logo
