Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

2012-03-20 Thread Jason Wong
Hello Daniel, Philip. I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message". It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job. Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks. Jason Wong.

SVN externals (externals failed, already locked)

2012-03-20 Thread Matthew J Fletcher
Hi, Sorry to post to the developers list, but i think my question was a bit complex for the users list. Original post here, http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-users/201203.mbox/%3C4F5F8CDC.9060205%40sky.com%3E Is this behaviour correct, wrong usage or a bug ? regards - M

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

2012-03-20 Thread Jason Wong
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700: >> Hello Daniel, Philip. >> >> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: >> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message". >> It looks like you all h

Re: Ruby bindings failing on buildbots

2012-03-20 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Joe Swatosh wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:27:13 -0700: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Hyrum K Wright > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright > >> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh > >>

Re: paths in diff output (possible bug)

2012-03-20 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Dmitry Pavlenko wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 21:54:58 +0100: > Hello all. > I'm trying to understand the principles how SVN calculates paths for diff. > > I've put repository attached under URL "http://localhost/svn";. I'll put its > history here: > --

Re: SVN externals (externals failed, already locked)

2012-03-20 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Ask again on the users@ list. dev@ is not an escalation path for users@: http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-12/0288.shtml (I and other devs read users@, and we'll see your post there when you re-ask it) Cheers, Daniel Matthew J Fletcher wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 21:09:42 +: > Hi, >

Re: Ruby bindings failing on buildbots

2012-03-20 Thread Philip Martin
Joe Swatosh writes: > I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the > node anymore? The property delete is still reported as a property change by the Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.change_file_prop in the Ruby bindings, see my first email in this thr

Re: a potential bug in svn_wc__db_wcroot_parse_local_abspath

2012-03-20 Thread Dmitry Pavlenko
Hello again. I've noticed other problems in SVN (this time they are bugs) for the case of nested working copies. I. For the case working_copy_root | +nested_working_copy_root +not_versioned_symlink if "working_copy_root" is SVN 1.6 working copy and "not_versioned_symlink" p

Re: [RFC] bump min serf version, or degrade? (was: svn commit: r1302682 ...)

2012-03-20 Thread Blair Zajac
On 03/19/2012 05:18 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: Hey all, With the change below, we can send all requests using Content-Length rather than chunking. This is the core work for fixing issue 3979. My question: should we simply bump the minimum serf

Re: paths in diff output (possible bug)

2012-03-20 Thread Dmitry Pavlenko
> I expected you'd get an "/directory/subdirectory@1 doesn't exist" error. I was the older (1.6) SVN behaviour Now "do {} while()" cycle in "diff_prepare_repos_repos" takes parent URL until URL exists in both start and end revisions. So maybe the cycle should be run only once not to let '/'.

Re: [RFC] bump min serf version, or degrade? (was: svn commit: r1302682 ...)

2012-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 13:43, Blair Zajac wrote: > On 03/19/2012 05:18 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Greg Stein  wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> With the change below, we can send all requests using Content-Length >>> rather than chunking. This is the core work

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

2012-03-20 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:49:06 +0200: > The time until 1.7.5 is counted in weeks, and 1.6.18 is scheduled to be > released next week. > The fix was merged to 1.6.x@HEAD today and barring surprises will be included in 1.6.18.

serf 1.0.3 released

2012-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
Hi all, I've just released serf version 1.0.3. This contains a small fix from Bert to map more OpenSSL error codes into serf's UNKNOWNCA code. This allows Subversion's certificate verification prompt to provide the "(p) permanent" acceptance option. Please visit http://code.google.com/p/serf/down

Re: serf 1.0.3 released

2012-03-20 Thread Blair Zajac
On 03/20/2012 01:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote: Hi all, I've just released serf version 1.0.3. This contains a small fix from Bert to map more OpenSSL error codes into serf's UNKNOWNCA code. This allows Subversion's certificate verification prompt to provide the "(p) permanent" acceptance option. Ple

Re: Ruby bindings failing on buildbots

2012-03-20 Thread Joe Swatosh
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Joe Swatosh writes: > >> I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the >> node anymore? > > The property delete is still reported as a property change by the > Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.chan