But as Julian and Branko pointed out Subversion's update operation works on
calculating deltas over the actual changes. Seeing non-changes as changes there
introduces unwanted behavior.
Going back to the old code that assumes something is changed in these cases +
in some unknown/undocumented/un
Summarizing a few mental notes:
Broken behavior (1 revision to the direct next/previous)
· Replay / svnadmin dump
(svnadmin dump is tightly integrated with replay. Svnrdump works on top of
replay)
· Log
Mostly caused by having the old behavior for years… never intended/desig
On 26 October 2015 at 22:33, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
>> Sent: maandag 26 oktober 2015 19:37
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org; Bert Huijben
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1710631 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
>> include/
On 27 October 2015 at 04:52, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Bert,
>
> As the OP of this mail-thread, which spun out of the discovery of a
> loss of information by 'dump' in 1.9 [1], I'd like to add some things.
>
> I found out about this problem during the Berlin hackathon, when I
> tested various dumpe
Bert Huijben writes:
> But this 'go back to 1.8' suggestio changes Subversion everywhere. It will
> make 'svn annotate' slower... Makes 'svn update' slower and report more tree
> conflicts, etc. etc.
For 'svn blame', the only difference is that we would be processing no-op
changes in file histor
> -Original Message-
> From: Evgeny Kotkov [mailto:evgeny.kot...@visualsvn.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 27 oktober 2015 14:38
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Johan Corveleyn ; Stefan Fuhrmann
> ; Julian Foad
> ; dev
> Subject: Re: No-op changes no longer dumped by 'svnadmin dump' in 1.9
> In 1.9 we
Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Bert Huijben writes:
>> But this 'go back to 1.8' suggestio changes Subversion everywhere. It will
>> make 'svn annotate' slower... Makes 'svn update' slower and report more tree
>> conflicts, etc. etc.
>
> For 'svn blame', the only difference is that we would be processing
On 26.10.2015 16:03, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 18 September 2015 at 00:00, wrote:
>> Author: rhuijben
>> Date: Thu Sep 17 21:00:36 2015
>> New Revision: 1703689
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1703689&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Following up on r1703688 fix conflicts reported on merging deletes
On 27.10.2015 20:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.10.2015 16:03, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> Do you know why we do not convert eol style/collapse keywords for
>> special files? I know that it's not related to this commit, but may be
>> you know rationale behind this behavior.
> The contents of special fil
9 matches
Mail list logo