Hi,
On 13 March 2013 18:51, wrote:
> Doesn't Apache officially only support vc6 builds for httpd on Windows?
The ASF supports no binaries at all. Indeed Bill used to compile httpd
with VC6, but the plans are to go to newer compiler. You may have
noticed that there weren't any windows binaries
On 13 March 2013 19:15, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: woensdag 13 maart 2013 18:47
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>>
>> Gentle reminder: VS 2010 doesn't compi
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Hey, all. The CollabNetters were talking today about the status of our
>> codebase, and were trying to enumerate the things which are blocking the
>> 1.8.x branch.
>>
[..]
>
> There are currently ten open issues marked '1.8.0', including som
On 14.03.2013 12:18, phi...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Thu Mar 14 11:18:56 2013
> New Revision: 1456394
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1456394
> Log:
> Pass SVN:Pool by reference otherwise a subpool gets created/destroyed
> and the allocated memory becomes invalid.
Yikes. Thanks f
On 03/13/2013 10:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> The interesting case here is a file replaced with an identical file:
> that's the only case where it's unchanged if ignoring ancestry but
> otherwise it's changed.
This may, in fact, be the only case that's interesting to our discussion.
But I trust you
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 13:33
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>
> On 13 March 2013 19:15, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 13:35
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: C. Michael Pilato; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: What's blocking the 1.8 branch?
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Julian Foad
> wrote:
> >> Hey, a
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 14:13
> To: Bert Huijben
> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>
> On 14 March 2013 13:44, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sergei
On 03/14/2013 08:35 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I think that issues #4329 and #4316 are the blocking ones. It will be
> much better if we could fix these two issues before the branch.
I'm not trying to be contentious, but ... why before the branch? I guess if
we thought the solutions would require m
On 03/14/2013 10:42 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 08:35 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> I think that issues #4329 and #4316 are the blocking ones. It will be
>> much better if we could fix these two issues before the branch.
>
> I'm not trying to be contentious, but ... why before the bra
On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 14:13
>> To: Bert Huijben
>> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>>
>> On 14 March 2013 13:44, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 16:02
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>
> On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >>
On 14 March 2013 16:09, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 16:02
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
>>
>> On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> In the current state we haven't started adding 2.X compatibility, as
> officially it doesn't exist yet. (Anything can change until the first
> released 2.X. There are no compatibly promises between major versions)
Unix build works with APR
Whenever we approach a release we always face the question: Which of
our open issues are blockers for the upcoming release? Obviously as
we approach 1.8, anything with a target milestone of 1.8.0 is
(supposedly) a blocker. But what about all the issues with the '---'
target milestone? Very old i
Paul Burba wrote:
> Whenever we approach a release we always face the question: Which of
> our open issues are blockers for the upcoming release? Obviously as
> we approach 1.8, anything with a target milestone of 1.8.0 is
> (supposedly) a blocker. But what about all the issues with the '---'
> t
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:09:45PM -, julianf...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Thu Mar 14 20:09:44 2013
> New Revision: 1456636
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1456636
> Log:
> * subversion/svn/svn.c
> (svn_cl__cmd_table): In the help for 'svn resolve', add the missing value
17 matches
Mail list logo
