From: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3942
===
The svnadmin command currently allows you to list and remove locks. It
would be useful if you could also create locks. Suggested syntax would
be something like:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> RFC:
>
> * Remove revprops.db code from trunk and 1.7
> * Release 1.7 with FSFS f4
> (this is the format that 1.6 used)
> * Implement revprops packing in f6 and release that in 1.8
+1.
- Julian
> This has seen some support on IRC, posting here for objections.
>
>
> >
There's a comment in libsvn_ra_[neon|serf]/options.c saying "we should
probably remove it before 1.7 goes final". Should we remove or keep it?
#define SVN_IGNORE_V2_ENV_VAR "SVN_I_LIKE_LATENCY_SO_IGNORE_HTTPV2"
#ifdef SVN_DEBUG
/* ### This section is throw in here for development use. It
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:44:27AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> There's a comment in libsvn_ra_[neon|serf]/options.c saying "we should
> probably remove it before 1.7 goes final". Should we remove or keep it?
>
> #define SVN_IGNORE_V2_ENV_VAR "SVN_I_LIKE_LATENCY_SO_IGNORE_HTTPV2"
>
> #ifdef SVN_D
Stefan Sperling writes:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:44:27AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> There's a comment in libsvn_ra_[neon|serf]/options.c saying "we should
>> probably remove it before 1.7 goes final". Should we remove or keep it?
>>
>> #define SVN_IGNORE_V2_ENV_VAR "SVN_I_LIKE_LATENCY_SO_
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Noorul Islam K M wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:08:55 +0530:
>
>> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>>
>> > rhuij...@apache.org wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:44:12 -:
>> >
>> >> Author: rhuijben
>> >> Date: Thu Jul 7 09:44:12 2011
>> >> New Revision: 1143731
>> >>
>> >> U
[Sending it to the list this time.]
Summary:
+1 to release
Platform:
Linux (Debian/squeeze)
Tested:
tarball + local dependencies
(local, svn, svn+sasl, serf, neon) x (fsfs, bdb)
swig-pl, swig-py, swig-rb, javahl
(serf/v1, neon/v1) x (fsfs)
Results:
All tests PASS
Local depend
Hi,
svn_client_status5 has a parameter depth_as_sticky. According to the doc
string:
If depth_as_sticky is set and depth is not svn_depth_unknown, then the
status is calculated as if depth_is_sticky was passed to an equivalent
update command.
this should report *everything* there is, even
On 07/07/2011 04:59 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Then why does 'svnadmin upgrade' say
>
> % $svnadmin upgrade r3
> Repository lock acquired.
> Please wait; upgrading the repository may take some time...
Heheh. Because that message was copy-n-pasted from the one used for
'svnadmin recover'. :-)
On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Stefan Küng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> svn_client_status5 has a parameter depth_as_sticky. According to the doc
> string:
>
> If depth_as_sticky is set and depth is not svn_depth_unknown, then the
> status is calculated as if depth_is_sticky was passed to an equivalent
> update comm
On 08.07.2011 17:39, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Stefan Küng wrote:
Hi,
svn_client_status5 has a parameter depth_as_sticky. According to the doc
string:
If depth_as_sticky is set and depth is not svn_depth_unknown, then the
status is calculated as if depth_is_sticky was pa
> -Original Message-
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpil...@collab.net]
> Sent: vrijdag 8 juli 2011 17:40
> To: Stefan Küng
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: svn_client_status5 and depth_as_sticky
>
> On 07/08/2011 10:57 AM, Stefan Küng wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > svn_client_sta
On 07/08/2011 11:47 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> (Stefan: I'll check if I can find where the regression occurred later this
> weekend)
... after filing a blocker issue in the tracker, of course. ;-)
--
C. Michael Pilato
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
s
On 07/07/2011 05:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> RFC:
>
> * Remove revprops.db code from trunk and 1.7
> * Release 1.7 with FSFS f4
> (this is the format that 1.6 used)
> * Implement revprops packing in f6 and release that in 1.8
>
> This has seen some support on IRC, posting here for objections.
On 07/08/2011 06:01 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> Stefan Sperling writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:44:27AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> There's a comment in libsvn_ra_[neon|serf]/options.c saying "we should
>>> probably remove it before 1.7 goes final". Should we remove or keep it?
>>>
>>>
On 08.07.2011 18:03, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 07/08/2011 11:47 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
(Stefan: I'll check if I can find where the regression occurred later this
weekend)
... after filing a blocker issue in the tracker, of course. ;-)
Filed as issue 3954:
http://subversion.tigris.org/is
On 07/08/2011 12:25 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 08.07.2011 18:03, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 07/08/2011 11:47 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> (Stefan: I'll check if I can find where the regression occurred later
>>> this weekend)
>>
>> ... after filing a blocker issue in the tracker, of course. ;-)
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> Why? It's intended for Subversion devs only, as evidenced by the fact that
> its only use is wrapped in an #ifdef SVN_DEBUG macro. What's the driving
> motivation for building this out into a user-accessible configuration
> option? What, exactly, is the driving mo
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 17:44 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>
> > Why? It's intended for Subversion devs only, as evidenced by the fact that
> > its only use is wrapped in an #ifdef SVN_DEBUG macro. What's the driving
> > motivation for building this out into a user-ac
On Fri, 2011-07-01, Paul Burba wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote:
> >> I will just ask once more: as a matter of principle, are we comfortable
> >> it's OK to provide only an indication that "the server did in fact do
> >> this for you this time", but not to have a way of finding out
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Sounds like three votes for keeping the code and removing the comment.
> Sounds good to me, so I'll do it.
r1144396.
- Julian
Maybe we should move it from tools to subversion and promote it to
supported?
Bert Huijben (Cell phone) From: phi...@apache.org
Sent: vrijdag 8 juli 2011 19:35
To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r1144397 - /subversion/trunk/win-tests.py
Author: philip
Date: Fri Jul 8 17:35:31
phi...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 14:02:42 -:
> Author: philip
> Date: Fri Jul 8 14:02:42 2011
> New Revision: 1144316
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1144316&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix issue 3953, mod_dav_svn failing to reject bogus mergeinfo on commit.
> Move server-side
Looks like some of these should be backported?
(eg the $HOME fix caught my attention... probably others)
hwri...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 14:44:43 -:
> Author: hwright
> Date: Fri Jul 8 14:44:42 2011
> New Revision: 1144344
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1144344&v
I was just pointed at this page:
http://pulse.apache.org/#subversion.apache.org
Pretty neat :-)
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:20:45PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> I was just pointed at this page:
> http://pulse.apache.org/#subversion.apache.org
>
> Pretty neat :-)
stats++
Bert Huijben writes:
> Maybe we should move it from tools to subversion and promote it to
> supported?
Probably. It needs to become a bit more "standard", I've added
--version but I'm not sure what I have to do to make I18N to work. If I
try to use _("string") I get an 'implicit declaration of
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> phi...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 14:02:42 -:
>> Author: philip
>> Date: Fri Jul 8 14:02:42 2011
>> New Revision: 1144316
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1144316&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix issue 3953, mod_dav_svn failing to reject bogus mergein
Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 19:27:00 +0100:
> Bert Huijben writes:
>
> > Maybe we should move it from tools to subversion and promote it to
> > supported?
>
> Probably. It needs to become a bit more "standard", I've added
> --version but I'm not sure what I have to do to make I1
Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 19:30:02 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > phi...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 14:02:42 -:
> >> Author: philip
> >> Date: Fri Jul 8 14:02:42 2011
> >> New Revision: 1144316
> >>
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1144316&vie
On 07/08/2011 01:49 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Maybe we should move it from tools to subversion and promote it to
> supported?
It's been discussed in the past. See list archives for arguments for and
against, because once we promote it, we're stuck with it. (And please,
let's not suggest making s
Daniel Shahaf writes:
>> Perhaps. svn_repos__validate_prop is also used by
>> svn_repos_fs_change_txn_props, is it appropriate to validate mergeinfo
>> there?
>>
>
> Why not? No one should be setting svn:mergeinfo as a txnprop (or
> revprop). (and if they do, they shouldn't use the svn:* name
My point wasn't the validation of svn:mergeinfo revprops, it was whether
the validation of svn:mergeinfo nodeprops should happen in
svn_repos__validate_prop().
I'm not against telling that function whether it's validating a nodeprop
or a revprop, and applying different logic in either case.
Phili
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> My point wasn't the validation of svn:mergeinfo revprops, it was whether
> the validation of svn:mergeinfo nodeprops should happen in
> svn_repos__validate_prop().
>
> I'm not against telling that function whether it's validating a nodeprop
> or a revprop, and applying dif
Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 20:39:02 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > My point wasn't the validation of svn:mergeinfo revprops, it was whether
> > the validation of svn:mergeinfo nodeprops should happen in
> > svn_repos__validate_prop().
> >
> > I'm not against telling that fu
On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:44 PM, danie...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Fri Jul 8 22:44:52 2011
> New Revision: 1144530
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1144530&view=rev
> Log:
> Repeat r1143899 elsewhere in the same function.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> (commit
Blair Zajac wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 15:50:17 -0700:
> On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:44 PM, danie...@apache.org wrote:
> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c Fri Jul 8 22:44:52
> > 2011
> > @@ -6509,8 +6509,7 @@ commit_body(void *baton, apr_pool_t *poo
> >
rhuij...@apache.org wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:29:49 -:
> @@ -196,17 +196,10 @@ build_info_for_entry(svn_wc__info2_t **i
> db, local_abspath,
> result_pool, scratch_pool));
>
> + /* And now fe
On 7/8/11 4:34 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 15:50:17 -0700:
On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:44 PM, danie...@apache.org wrote:
+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c Fri Jul 8 22:44:52 2011
@@ -6509,8 +6509,7 @@ commit_body(void *baton, apr_pool_t *poo
Blair Zajac wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 17:52:26 -0700:
> On 7/8/11 4:34 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >Blair Zajac wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 15:50:17 -0700:
> >>On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:44 PM, danie...@apache.org wrote:
> >>>+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c Fri Jul 8 22:44:52
40 matches
Mail list logo
