Hi,
While I tested the filename transcoding issue in
svn_cmdline__file_edit_externally() on Windows, I found that I couldn't
specifiy SVN_EDITOR path contains a space even if I tried the method
described in FAQ[1].
[1] https://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#svn-editor
e.g. (Using CP65001)
[[[
C
Doug Robinson: Would you please cast your eye over this, as an affected
party? Basically I'd ask if you want to offer your take on fixing this
authz semantics regression?
I haven't been following this issue; I've just noticed it. On quick
inspection it seems to me after two LTS releases with
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 06:07:49AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Sounds like this change merits an entry in the 1.14 release notes (if
> it's backported) or in the 1.15 release notes if it's not backported.
> Would you please add a placeholder (just a section header or a ToC
> link) or file a corre
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:21:27PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Doug Robinson: Would you please cast your eye over this, as an affected
> party? Basically I'd ask if you want to offer your take on fixing this
> authz semantics regression?
>
> I haven't been following this issue; I've just noticed
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
I've been trying to dig into shelving and bug 4827. I've been debugging
the regression test from Julian. Please excuse me if I'm making up terms
for things called something else, I'm still new at this.
Thank you for digging into this. Sorry for being slow to respond.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:36 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> In my opinion the original change was a mistake which should be corrected.
> I think the benefits of seamless upgrades of existing deployments outweight
> concerns over potential regressions in fresh deployments (which, let's admit
> it, are
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:15 AM wrote:
>
> Author: svn-role
> Date: Tue Oct 6 04:15:36 2020
> New Revision: 1882263
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1882263&view=rev
> Log:
> * upcoming.part.html: Automatically regenerated
>
> Modified:
> subversion/site/publish/upcoming.part.html
>
Nathan Hartman wrote:
Stefan Sperling wrote:
In my opinion the original change was a mistake which should be corrected.
To be clear: I don't disagree (and thank you for debugging and fixing
it); I understand your reasoning; I just don't have the context to judge
the impact and want to be sur
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:24:01PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> A third group is pre-existing deployments in which the admins have now
> adjusted their rules to match the 1.10+ behaviour. I can't guess which
> group is biggest, which ones matter more or less than others, nor in what
> proportion of
9 matches
Mail list logo
