Philip Martin writes:
> Perhaps we just have to say that upgrade is not possible with
> outstanding workqueue items? The user must use an old client to run
> cleanup.
I think this is the way to go. We already require this for somebody
upgrading from 1.6, so it will only affect people running 1
On Tue, 2010-06-29, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> I heard you were changing things about update editor's add_file() copyfrom
> args. The thing is I have taken the liberty to look at add-vs-add tree
> conflicts and have a pretty nice improvement on that aalmost ready.
>
> Now I fear that
rhuij...@apache.org writes:
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Tue Jun 29 21:56:50 2010
> New Revision: 959121
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959121&view=rev
> Log:
> Make the parent stub verification of navigate_to_parent() optional.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> (navigate_to_parent):
Hello,
O.K., it seems there is really a need to discuss the problem of
SHA-1 collisions more deeply.
Mark already stated out most of the necessary points.
1. A collision is unlikely to come from small differences.
As I agree with all of you, a SHA-1 is practically impossible on
data der
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-29, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> > I heard you were changing things about update editor's add_file() copyfrom
> > args. The thing is I have taken the liberty to look at add-vs-add tree
> > conflicts and have a pretty nice improvement on that
On 2010-06-30 12:45, Julian Foad wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-06-29, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>>> Hi Julian,
>>>
>>> I heard you were changing things about update editor's add_file() copyfrom
>>> args. The thing is I have taken the liberty to look at add-vs-add tree
>>> conflicts a
> From: Paul Burba [mailto:ptbu...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010
> 5:55 PM
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
> > On 06/29/2010 10:36 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> I don't believe we support --reintegrate on a two-URL merge.
> >> Unfortunately,
> >> th
(fixed quoting)
Edward Ned Harvey wrote on Tue, 29 Jun 2010 at 23:57 -:
> Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name]
> > Edward Ned Harvey wrote on Tue, 29 Jun 2010 at 07:15 -:
> > > Some people are seeing 20min commit times on changes they could have
> > > copied uncompressed in 1min.
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 08:59 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:36, wrote:
> > >...
> > > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_wc/pristine-store-test.c Fri
> > > Jun 25 12:36:53 2010
> > >...
> > > + /* Store a pristine text,
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name]
>
> > I've had the greatest complaints for >15min commits.
> >
>
> So, a commit takes 1min when the server is idle, and 15min when the
> server is busy.
Actually, I'm surprised what I'm learning now. Although it matters if the
serv
[ can you please reply as text, not HTML? thanks. ]
Edward Ned Harvey wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 at 19:01 -:
> . If I export all the different rev's of that file (parent dir, no
> subdirs) then some rev's are repeatably less than 11sec to export, while
> other revs are repeatably 15min.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Actually, I'm surprised what I'm learning now. Although it matters if the
> server is busy, that's not the root cause of the problem. Also, changing
> the compression level makes a difference, but it's not the difference we
> were hop
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:25, wrote:
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Wed Jun 30 11:25:33 2010
> New Revision: 959270
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959270&view=rev
> Log:
> Remove another use of entries, by creating an node function that only
> calculates the entry-like schedule and copied
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:23, wrote:
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Wed Jun 30 12:23:32 2010
> New Revision: 959278
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959278&view=rev
> Log:
> Following up on r959270, fix a few cases where the schedule calculation
> didn't handle replacements correctly.
Told
I completely disagree with this.
Didn't I just get done describing the intent here? We allow the
upgrade to continue. If there is an impact on work queue items, then
they must be upgraded, too.
Clients are not expected to back up to previous revisions and run "svn
cleanup". We ONLY plan to requir
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:54, wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Wed Jun 30 14:54:42 2010
> New Revision: 959340
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959340&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix upgrade_tests.py 7 with SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE and format 17.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/upgrade.c
> (upgrade_t
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:59, wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c Tue Jun 29 12:59:30 2010
> @@ -1625,6 +1625,48 @@ svn_wc__db_base_add_absent_node(svn_wc__
> scratch_pool));
>
> flush_entries(pdh);
> +
> + if (*local_abspath
Thanks, Gavin! Much appreciated.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 18:54, Gav... wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just disabled all Hudson builds.
>
> The only ones passing regularly were the docs.
>
> The Windows build has been disabled for some time.
>
> The other four builds used to pass ok when I fi
Greg Stein writes:
> I completely disagree with this.
>
> Didn't I just get done describing the intent here?
You didn't respond to my questions in the last thread.
> We allow the
> upgrade to continue. If there is an impact on work queue items, then
> they must be upgraded, too.
We don't gener
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 13:55, Philip Martin wrote:
> Greg Stein writes:
>
>> I completely disagree with this.
>>
>> Didn't I just get done describing the intent here?
>
> You didn't respond to my questions in the last thread.
Gee. I'm sorry. I have a life. I don't have time to respond to
everyt
I think if you could find a real life collision - you might be able to
get some sort of award. Good luck. :-)
Cheers,
mark
On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
Hello,
O.K., it seems there is really a need to discuss the problem of
SHA-1 collisions more deeply.
...
But one
[ trim CC ]
Mark Mielke wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 at 21:37 -:
> On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
> > P.S. Thanks for the warning; we are not going to use 1.7.
Did you check what is the probability of dying in a car accident?
> > At the Moment we are not using 1.6
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> [ trim CC ]
>
> Mark Mielke wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 at 21:37 -:
>> On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
>> > P.S. Thanks for the warning; we are not going to use 1.7.
>
> Did you check what is the probability of dyin
23 matches
Mail list logo
