On 18 August 2014 12:39, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 18.08.2014 09:21, Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>
> * subversion/include/svn_x509.h
> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509.h
> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509info.c
> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509parse.c
> * subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/x50
On 02.09.2014 10:50, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 18 August 2014 12:39, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 18.08.2014 09:21, Julian Foad wrote:
>>
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> * subversion/include/svn_x509.h
>> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509.h
>> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509info.c
>> * subversion/libsvn_subr
Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> May be it's already discussed, but do someone have objections on
>>> settings 'svn:auto-props' on project root with content like this:
>>> [[[
>>> svn:auto-props
>>> *.py = svn:eol-style=native
>>> *.c = svn:eol-style=native
>>> *.h = svn:eol-style=native
>>> ]
On 2 September 2014 14:26, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.09.2014 10:50, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 18 August 2014 12:39, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 18.08.2014 09:21, Julian Foad wrote:
>>>
>>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>
>>> * subversion/include/svn_x509.h
>>> * subversion/libsvn_subr/x509.h
>>> * subv
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> The attached brute-force patch seems to fix many of the cases where
> changelist
> filtering was missing or wrong, but I don't much like it and haven't
> properly tested it.
So here, attached, is an implementation of the post-filtering approach. This is
implemented usi
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Foad [mailto:julianf...@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 2 september 2014 13:45
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Peter Galcik'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Segmentation fault during diff generation
>
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> > The attached brut
Bert Huijben wrote:
>> So here, attached, is an implementation of the post-filtering approach.
>> This is implemented using a common filter for repos-WC and WC-WC diffs.
>> [...]
>
> I really like this approach.
>
> I think we should commit it and improve from there. (I can't see why it
> would b
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Thanks. r1621978. (That's almost exactly the patch I posted here, but after
> I cleaned up some unused variables and obsolete comments.)
Simplified, and removed a stray debug print, in r1621981.
- Julian
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
>> Thanks. r1621978. (That's almost exactly the patch I posted here, but after
>> I cleaned up some unused variables and obsolete comments.)
>
> Simplified, and removed a stray debug print, in r1621981.
Nominated for backport to 1.8.x in 1622023.
- Julian
On 8/20/14 9:13 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I think part of the problem here has been we (as in WANdisco folks) have
> discussed the idea of an instance ID for repositories in the past to solve the
> range of replacing the repository without clearing the cache issues. But this
> change is being added f
Ben Reser writes:
>> I think part of the problem here has been we (as in WANdisco folks) have
>> discussed the idea of an instance ID for repositories in the past to solve
>> the range of replacing the repository without clearing the cache issues.
>> But this change is being added for a very diff
11 matches
Mail list logo