RE: Subversion in 2010

and have had great responses from the enterprises that I've interacted with since then. CollabNet has interacted with a large number of enterprises that we'll engage in this effort. Hopefully this can help with the effort to define a roadmap for the community as I'm sure it will help with CollabNet's own roadmap for contributions. Stay tuned! Bob Jenkins

wc-ng and a reference wc

d have to be a limitation (recognizing I'm not a coder so I see things only from the surface) so enlighten me if he does have to be a limitation. Thanks, Bob Jenkins

RE: wc-ng and a reference wc

Thanks Greg and Philip! Your secret's safe with me :-) Bob -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:36 PM To: Bob Jenkins; Philip Martin Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: wc-ng and a reference wc On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at

Re: auto-upgrade of working copy

I definitely think people do like having this automatically done for them with the only exception being those people who use multiple clients on a single working copy. I'm not surprised no one talks about it as a desirable feature as it is just how it has always worked. As Mark notes, you'll hear m

RE: auto-upgrade of working copy

mainly play to this group. The others are just having to take an action they want 90+% of the time. Bob Jenkins -Original Message- From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.arc...@amsi.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:48 AM To: Mark Phippard; dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: RE: auto-upgrade

RE: Do we need to store redundant mergeinfo?

nk this list is an adequate way to evaluate whether something is being used because the true customer base is not subscribed. Bob Jenkins From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:42 PM To: Juli

RE: It's time to fix Subversion Merge

, but we can't expect different results by doing things the same way. Thanks for listening, Bob Jenkins Director, Subversion Services CollabNet

RE: Diff shows added svn:mergeinfo prop as lots of new merges

I think the key is that what is done to merge for 1.8 have significant substance not just be a "nice to have". Users aren't indicating confusion so much as they are indicating performance issues and mishandled or unhandled use cases. Better information is good, but real progress on the items giving