Re: Implicit keep-alive after reintegrate merge

2012-01-19 Thread Julian Foad
Paul Burba wrote on 2012-01-11: > A random thought about your patch: The skip/stop logic kicks in when > performing a cherry pick merge.  It might be better if it only applies > when doing sync merges.  Reasoning: If a user explicitly states the > revisions she wants to merge, I think we should as

Re: Implicit keep-alive after reintegrate merge

2012-01-19 Thread Julian Foad
Branko Čibej wrote: > On 18.01.2012 23:37, Julian Foad wrote: >> [...] there are certain simple >> changes that the three-way text merge function will detect as "looks >> like that change has already been made here" and auto-resolve it as a >> no-op, but that's beside the point. > > I don't th

Re: [RFC] Server Dictated Configuration

2012-01-19 Thread Paul Burba
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Paul Burba wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Hyrum K Wright > wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >> ... >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Hyrum K Wright >>> wrote: As I recall, there were a few reasons why inherited prop

Re: Implicit keep-alive after reintegrate merge

2012-01-19 Thread Branko Čibej
On 19.01.2012 15:38, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: > >> Instead of trying to invent ways to not make current reintegrate suck >> rocks, I'd suggest taking a look at how other tools handle such repeated >> merges between branches. Specifically, since git afficionados have so >> much to sa

request to clarify and improve Subversion property name specification

2012-01-19 Thread Garret Wilson
Summary: There seems to be no public specification (other than the source code) on what makes a valid Subversion property name. Subversion property name validation is implemented differently on various clients, including "official" clients. I request that the Subversion property name specificat

Re: Implicit keep-alive after reintegrate merge

2012-01-19 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 20:11:25 +0100: > On 19.01.2012 15:38, Julian Foad wrote: > > Branko Čibej wrote: > > > >> Instead of trying to invent ways to not make current reintegrate suck > >> rocks, I'd suggest taking a look at how other tools handle such repeated > >> merges betwe

Re: svn commit: r1233566 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_io.h libsvn_subr/stream.c

2012-01-19 Thread Daniel Shahaf
hwri...@apache.org wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 20:56:35 -: > Author: hwright > Date: Thu Jan 19 20:56:35 2012 > New Revision: 1233566 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1233566&view=rev > Log: > Add a public wrapper around our spillbuf-backed stream. > > * subversion/include/svn_io.h

Re: svn commit: r1233566 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_io.h libsvn_subr/stream.c

2012-01-19 Thread Hyrum K Wright
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > hwri...@apache.org wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 20:56:35 -: >> Author: hwright >> Date: Thu Jan 19 20:56:35 2012 >> New Revision: 1233566 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1233566&view=rev >> Log: >> Add a public wrapper around

Re: svn commit: r1233566 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_io.h libsvn_subr/stream.c

2012-01-19 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 21:47:51 -0600: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I do wonder if the "to disk" threshold should be in the public > > signature, but don't have offhand a use-case justifying that. > > We could, but I figured callers who needed

Re: svn commit: r1233566 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_io.h libsvn_subr/stream.c

2012-01-19 Thread Greg Stein
On Jan 19, 2012 11:02 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" wrote: > > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 21:47:51 -0600: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > I do wonder if the "to disk" threshold should be in the public > > > signature, but don't have offhand a use-case justi