On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2009-12-17, Alan Spencer wrote:
>>> I've been asked to analyse a problem we have had with subversion and
>>> come to the conclusion there is a bug in at least the client.
>>>
>>>
>>> The scenario was someone committed a new dire
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> > @@ -4352,7 +4390,8 @@
> > path_copy_in_repo_2475,
> > commit_copy_depth_empty,
> > copy_below_copy,
> > - XFail(move_below_move)
> > + XFail(move_bel
On Sat, 2010-01-23, Paul Burba wrote:
> I committed this enhancement in r902509.
Thanks, Paul.
> A few things to note:
>
> 1) In my example at the start of this thread I used an ' A'
> notification to denote the addition of a mergeinfo property. That
> does not agree with how we notify propert
The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the
actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...".
Full Details
I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an
r902780M trunk build of svn. (I confirmed with an r902508 trunk build
that excludes the recent patch to
After merging all changes from a branch into the WC, a second attempt of
the same merge brings in a different file.
Full Details
I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an
r902780M trunk build of svn. (I confirmed with an r902508 trunk build
that excludes the recent patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Julian Foad wrote:
> The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the
> actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...".
[..]
> Is that difference in the start revision of the range expected? (The
> merge saying it's recording "r891676
Kannan wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
> > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the
> > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...".
> [..]
> > Is that difference in the start revision of the range expected? (The
> > merge saying it's recording "r891676 through ..." versus d
> -Original Message-
> From: pbu...@apache.org [mailto:pbu...@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 6 januari 2010 17:49
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r896522 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/resolve_tests.py
>
> Author: pburba
> Date: Wed Jan 6 16:48:3
On Fri, 2010-01-22, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Julian Foad
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-11, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > Your new patch now has a more descriptive error message, that is the
> > same as the one produced by the parse_spool_file() function, which is
> > good, b
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
>
> Julian,
>
> Please find attached test case patch for this scenario in trunk.
>
> [[[
> Log:
>
> New XFail test case for reverse merge move scenario. Rename fails after
> reverting a commit using reverse merge. This issue need to be fixed
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the
> actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...".
>
> Full Details
>
> I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an
> r902780M trunk build of svn. (I confir
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:29 -0500, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the
> > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...".
> >
> > Full Details
> >
> > I tried a merge in a clean WC of the bra
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> > + # Move new added file to another one and commit.
> > + second_path = os.path.join(new_path, 'second')
> > + rav_svn(None, None, [], 'move', first_path, second_path)
> > + rav_svn(None, None, ["Committed revision
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:16 AM, wrote:
> Author: stylesen
> Date: Fri Dec 18 09:16:18 2009
> New Revision: 892189
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=892189&view=rev
> Log:
> Merge r891672 from ^/subversion/trunk.
>
> Modify subversion/tests/cmdline/externals_tests.py to correct some
> lat
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> After merging all changes from a branch into the WC, a second attempt of
> the same merge brings in a different file.
>
> Full Details
>
> I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an
> r902780M trunk build of svn. (I conf
See below...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Greg Stein
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 17:32
Subject: Re: Discussion: graduating Subversion
To: gene...@incubator.apache.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 17:21, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Greg Stein
My take is deprecate the old package names (org.tigris.*), add the new
package name (org.apache.subversion.*), and remove the deprecated
names whenever we go to 2.0.
I'm moderately ambivalent on whether this happens for 1.7 or if can
wait for 1.8...
I don't see much else we can do under our versi
julianf...@apache.org wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 at 17:29 -:
> Fix the expected output of an XFail test added in r902841, so that when the
> bug is fixed the test will have at least a chance of passing.
>
> + rav_svn(None, "Adding.*New|Adding.*first||Committed revision 4.", [],
You don't want
Hi Paul,
Paul Burba wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:16 AM, wrote:
Author: stylesen
Date: Fri Dec 18 09:16:18 2009
New Revision: 892189
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=892189&view=rev
Log:
Merge r891672 from ^/subversion/trunk.
Modify subversion/tests/cmdline/externals_tests.py to cor
19 matches
Mail list logo
