答复: Subversion 2.0

tion) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! 发件人: Nathan Hartman 发送时间: 2019年7月3日 0:41 收件人: Markus Schaber 抄送: Thomas Singer ; Subversion Developers 主题: Re: Subver

答复: Svnadmin dump with include can not dump the subdir into add when it's parent path was a branch

ecipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! -邮件原件- 发件人: Daniel Shahaf 发送时间: 2020年3月22日 1:35 收件人: 钱海远(Nathan) 抄送: us...@subversion.apache.org; dev@subversion.apache.org 主题: Re: Svnadmin dump with includ

A patch of svnlook subcommand search

he community, I don’t know if it is needed? Best Regards! Nathan Qian R & D Management Group Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co.,Ltd No.555 Qianmo Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou 310052, China M (86)18969199712 本邮件及其附件含有海康威视公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、

[Repair] Replay: A patch of svnlook subcommand search

but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! 发件人: 钱海远(Nathan) 发送时间: 2020年4月8日 14:33 收件人:

Svnmucc sensitive to order of mkdir

Dear all, I was discuss with Daniel Shahaf about the Issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4854 SVN 1.10.6 change the svnmucc , it’s sensitive with mkdir operations, if a want to mkdir /foot/bar when /foot is not exists , svnmucc only can work with

svn_fs_node_id causes memory leak...

Dear Sir, I found that svn_fs_node_id causes memory leak. I had report the issue in jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4907?jql=project%20%3D%20SVN Daniel Shahaf need some more info : Q: Can you attach a code sample that we can compile and run ourselves and reproduces the problem?

答复: svn_fs_node_id causes memory leak...

mination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! -邮件原件- 发件人: Yasuhito FUTATSUKI 发送时间: 2022年8月31日 0:52 收件人: 钱海远(Nathan) ; Subversion Developers 主题: Re: sv

svn_uri_is_canonical(url, pool) 1.7.3

I received the following from my tortoise svn 64bit whilt trying to checkout from my local visual svn server 2.5.2. In file 'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.3\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_client\checkout.c' line 94: assertion failed (svn_uri_is_canonical(url, pool)) So this is w

Re: [RFC] Shelving and Checkpointing

ealize that this suggests a major backwards-incompatible change to the working copy format and indeed the entire client side. But this was a request for comment. :-) Hopefully someone finds my input valuable. Kind regards, Nathan > References: > [1] Shelving-Checkpointing Dev doc. (J Foad) > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PVgw0BdPF7v67oxIK7B_Yjmr3p28ojabP5N1PfZTsHk/edit#

Re: [RFC] Shelving and Checkpointing

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote: > >> [...] What if, instead of just a pristine copy, it actually created a >> private local repository. Revision 1 of this repository would be the >> pristine copy. [...] >> > > That

Re: [RFC] Shelving and Checkpointing

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Diffing checkpoints is quite hard (well, needs a patch-arithmetic library) in > this design. Even just determining whether two patches are "identical". That > might be a good reason for me to try the alternative design "store > checkpoints i

Re: Checkpointing mock-up option 3 (backed by a local repo)

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > I committed an initial prototype for checkpointing backed by a local > repo embedded in the WC (the "option 3" design), on the > "shelve-checkpoint3" branch. > > http://svn.apache.org/r1803046 and follow-ups. > Woohoo! Very exciting! I didn

Re: Checkpointing mock-up option 3 (backed by a local repo)

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > What can we learn from this mock-up? Here are some of my thoughts (snip) > If I checkpoint my changes, do I then want to see 'status' and 'diff' > against the original base or against the checkpoint? Both are useful. > (snip) > Probably 'ch

Re: Checkpointing mock-up option 3 (backed by a local repo)

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote: > All considered, it feels to me like we have neither the collective will > nor the resources to take this in the direction of full local branching. > I can't commit myself to that. The present work shou

Re: [RFC] Using LZ4 compression by default

On Aug 2, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > With the recently added support for LZ4 compression (r1801940 et al), > we now have an option of using it by default for the on-disk data and > over the wire. > [...] > The amount of the required additional space is proportional > to the diffe

Re: Checkpointing mock-up option 3 (backed by a local repo)

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Keep in mind that a revision -- or any versioned state -- can be > thought of in two ways: as a complete snapshot of the tree, or as > representing a change relative to the previous snapshot. > > First let us be sure we understand that updating

Re: Giving 1.10 alpha more exposure to gather feedback

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > Can we try to give 1.10 alpha3 a bit more exposure, in order to gather > more feedback? I'm thinking of: > I assume alpha status means not for production use. The question then is how to test effectively, in a manner that is representat

Re: Giving 1.10 alpha more exposure to gather feedback

On Aug 18, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > I agree a more integrated collaboration environment would a big plus. > But ... how do we get there? Without losing our independence as an ASF > project ... > > Can we get there with ASF infrastructure? I doubt it. I've been > looking arou

Re: Building Subversion.

On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Paul Hammant wrote: > Generally, the Subversion project should depend less on the Redbean book. > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.8/index.html is about 1.8 and it's marked as > DRAFT. There's no 1.9 or 1.10. While it is great that Msssrs. > Collins-Sussman, Fitzpat

Re: [RFC] Upgrade to C'90 as our minimum C language

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > > I know there is a problem with Microsoft not supporting C'99. C'90 > should be fine though, and some of C'99 if we want to. > Looks like this isn't going to happen but FWIW and just for others' reference, we compile an internal C99 librar

Re: Server-side SavePoints [was: Subversion Design Contribution Question]

oints and the safety of centralized version control. Hopefully these thoughts are beneficial to the community. Kind regards, Nathan

Re: Let's switch to time-based releases

On Dec 1, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > >> On 01.12.2017 13:16, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have >> consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure >> out some details. > > Will that be Subversion 18.04 Anticli

Re: svn commit: r1819391 - /subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html

On Dec 28, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Stefan wrote: > > Suggestion for a different phrasing: > > section id: svn-1.9-old-stable > > The Subversion 1.9.x line is now the old stable version. This means that > 1.9.x will still receive security relevant fixes as well as bugfixes. While > we will evaluat

Re: 1.10 API review - svn_io_stdin_readline()

> On Jan 15, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > > About this new-for-1.10 API: > [[[ > /** Reads a string from stdin until a newline or EOF is found > * > * @since New in 1.10. > */ > svn_error_t * > svn_io_stdin_readline(const char **result, > apr_pool_t *result_pool, >

Re: Windows Compile Help

On Jan 27, 2018, at 11:44 PM, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > > I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction with an issue I'm > having compiling Subversion on Windows 10 using Visual Studio 2015 tools. > > I decided to break out of my comfort zone a bit and see if I could get the > changes

Re: Windows Compile Help

On Jan 27, 2018, at 11:44 PM, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > > I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction with an issue I'm > having compiling Subversion on Windows 10 using Visual Studio 2015 tools. > > I decided to break out of my comfort zone a bit and see if I could get the > changes

Re: Windows Compile Help

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Troy Curtis Jr wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:21 AM Nathan Hartman > wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2018, at 11:44 PM, Troy Curtis Jr >> wrote: >> >> I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction with an

Re: Backward or forward deltas, backend, FSX

delta applications to produce. > Does this mean that when checking out HEAD from a repository with a large number of commits, the oldest revision it must access is HEAD - 16? In other words, is a compressed full text stored every 16 revisions? Nathan Hartman

Re: Backward or forward deltas, backend, FSX

On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:01 -0500: >>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> >>> Péter wrote on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:47 +0100: >>> I'm not sure why you

Re: SHA-1 collision in repository?

rb->fs, &next_rep, >> rb->filehandle_pool)); >> >> >> The bug is occurring because build_rep_list is being called with >> first_rep->expanded_size set to zero. Well, the reason it's zero is >> because first_rep is the secon

Re: SHA-1 collision in repository?

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > > The cause of the bug, as identified by Melissa, is that the wrong > expanded size if computed -- it gets set to the size of the delta in the > protorev file. The svn_stream_t that is producing the fulltext works in > 16K chunks, so the t

Re: Script to obliterate the most recent revision(s)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > TODO: > > 'svnadmin verify' doesn't detect if the rep-cache still contains too-new > revs, which would cause silent corruption during later commits if allowed > to remain in place. We should fix that. (I will file an issue.) > > It just occurr

Re: Wiki migration complete -- new wiki is now live

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > After several more iterations, I'm happy to report that the wiki > migration to the ASF's Confluence wiki is now considered "done". See: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/SVN How do ordinary users access the new Wiki (for reading)? The link a

Re: Wiki migration complete -- new wiki is now live

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Nathan Hartman > wrote: > > How do ordinary users access the new Wiki (for reading)? The link above > > leads to a login page. > > Sorry, I forgot to enable anonymous access

Re: Shelve & checkpoint - next steps

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:01 PM Julian Foad wrote: > Since http://svn.apache.org/r1831908 the "svn status" command can operate > directly on a shelf. > > $ svn shelves -q > foo > $ svn st --cl svn:shelf:foo > --- Changelist 'svn:shelf:foo': > A D1 > A new-file > MM config.txt >

Re: Plumbing work to make shelving complete and robust

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:26 PM Julian Foad wrote: > Only by implementing more than one edit driver for each editor (and vice > versa) can we prove that the components are cleanly separated by an API and > thus re-usable. > > Then there is the need for a test framework that can generate all > di

Re: The future of the Subversion book

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:49 PM Mark Phippard wrote: > Assuming the PMC wanted it, is it possible for the book to be contributed > to this project and hosted in the Apache SVN repository? Many people seem > to post questions and issues in these mailing lists as if it is part of the > project anyw

Re: API review for 1.11; do we need to mark new APIs as experimental?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:17 AM Greg Stein wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 8:48 AM Greg Stein wrote: > >... > >> No no no... I agree with Brane above. It is confusing, and if people >> mistakenly mix/match releases things will Just Break. Mysteriously. And >> horribly. And possibly data-destruc

Re: API review for 1.11; do we need to mark new APIs as experimental?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:09 PM Stefan Sperling wrote: > I'm not sure. Exposing these APIs as private ones looked like a simple > solution to me. On the other hand, maybe "experimental" is a designation > which is easier for downstream users to understand as opposed to "private" > which already h

Re: API review for 1.11; do we need to mark new APIs as experimental?

In order to strike a balance between: * Developing new features across the more frequent release schedule * Allowing developers to offer these features early, and users to opt in to them * Avoiding bricking a program as described by Daniel (program fails to start after DLLs are upgraded)

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Subversion 1.10.3 released

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:31 AM Julian Foad wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> https://subversion.apache.org/download.cgi#supported-releases > > > > I think that is the wrong link. > > It does not point to 1.10.3 > > Thanks ... you're right. I have now figured out what I did wrong. The list of peop

Re: Staging the 1.11.0 website updates

> > On 29.10.2018 18:43, Julian Foad wrote: > > I just pushed the website updates for 1.11.0 to staging: > > > > https://subversion-staging.apache.org/ > > https://subversion-staging.apache.org/news > > https://subversion-staging.apache.org/download > > > https://subversion-staging.apache.org/docs/

Re: SVN version numbering

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:14 AM Thomas Singer wrote: > Hi all, > > OK, we are now at SVN 1.11 because you have agreed to release often with > only a few changes. What does the prefix "1." mean - will there be some > "2." or "3." in the future? If not, then it is redundant. For time-based > releas

Re: Configuration file syntax

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:50 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > As noted in another thread, I've written a page in Confluence that > describes the syntax of our configuration files: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/oYvQBQ > > Please review it, especially the formal definition; and please use > in-

Re: Configuration file syntax

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:53 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 09.12.2018 15:32, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:50 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/oYvQBQ > >> > >> Please review it, > > &

Re: Subversion Exception!

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:59 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > I never said that it's a good idea to abort in a library. We made a > mistake in the early days of this project to allow such patterns. > > I am quite angry at the contrariness and stubbornness of one TSVN > developer, who is *also* a Subve

Re: Display outstanding backported fixes for each release?

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 9:24 AM Mark Phippard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:47 AM Julian Foad wrote: > >> Julian Foad wrote: >> > Ha ha! It's laugh-out-loud ugly, that teeny-tiny viewport... >> >> I hope my sense of humour was not badly misjudged. Seeing that Mark wrote >> it "Looks good" wit

Re: SHA1 collisions became cheaper to create.

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:06 AM Paul Hammant wrote: > The Git folks moved to a hardened SHA1 function as an interim measure > on the way to SHA-256 - > > https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt > > I think you're generally right. While I might t

Re: Subversion's community health

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:35 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Julian Foad : > > not dwell on our sadness and criticism of what went before; let us try to > > keep this thread focused on positive solutions for what to do next. > It's all a matter of publicity. Git gets all the publicity because open

Re: Subversion's community health

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:00 AM Julian Foad wrote: > Here is my suggestion. > > > Primary goals: > > * Stability > > * Availability All of the above -- being mature, reaching the stability phase, etc -- is true of Subversion 1.x. It is _not_ true of "Subversion" without a 1.x after it. Sub

Re: GitHub pull requests

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:27 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > Moving the source to git would be less than ideal in terms of eating our > own dogfood. It would also be a terrible move from the "marketing" > perspective. I agree with that. There is a lot to be said for "dogfooding." Keeping the project i

Subversion 2.0

I first heard about Subversion from an article in Linux Journal back in 2002 [1]. The only viable open source version control at the time was CVS, which wasn't very good, but "everyone" used it because it was available and it worked, despite its shortcomings. Subversion promised to be a massive imp

Re: Subversion 2.0

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:38 AM Mark Phippard wrote: > I think the reason that both Subversion and Git were successful is that > they both had very clear and compelling visions and goals for what they > wanted to accomplish and then they did that. > > I do not think a few new features or design

Re: Subversion 2.0

> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 5:34 PM Branko Čibej wrote: >On 25.06.2019 19:16, Thomas Singer wrote: >>> I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but here's some food for >>> thought. The only valid reason to call anything 2.0 is if, and only if, >>> we decide to break backwards compatibility in some

Re: svn_io_file_flush_to_disk fails on AFS filesystems on Darwin

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:49 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 26.06.2019 04:52, Quentin Smith wrote: > > svn_io_file_flush_to_disk in subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c fails to > > flush files on AFS filesystems on Darwin. The user-visible experience is: (snip) > The code ignores EINVAL with a comment a

Re: svn_io_file_flush_to_disk fails on AFS filesystems on Darwin

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:20 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 26.06.2019 20:57, Branko Čibej wrote: > > Turns out that APR is already doing this _almost_ correctly. The kind of > > change linked to above would fit in APR quite well. The "problem" is > > that Subversion currently doesn't use the "new

Re: Subversion 2.0

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:15 PM Thomas Singer wrote: > What I like most about Git: > - it allows to create clean commits, because I can modify all my local > commits, e.g. reorder and squash them, in case I detected an error in a > previous, unpushed commit > > - I can solve every conflict loca

Re: Checkpointing

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:12 PM Thomas Singer wrote: > - so the working copy can have checked out multiple commits or one > checkpoint? > The working copy has always provided one "view." I say "view" for lack of a better word but I mean the checked out directory of your data that is under versio

Re: Checkpointing

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:21 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > As Mark explained, it will do none of the above unless someone steps up > and writes the code. > > For reference, what Nathan described was discussed here on the list and > in person during hackathons years ago, yet nothing

Re: Subversion 2.0

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 4:47 AM Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:18 PM Nathan Hartman > wrote: > >> I understand that from a technical perspective, there is no reason to >> change the major version number unless compatibility/API/ABI promises are >> goin

Re: Checkpointing

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Singer wrote: > With "rebasing" I mean, that such list of "local commits" needs to be > re-applied (on demand, not automatically) onto a different revision. > Something like a continues series of cherry-picking (with the > possibility to get a conflict in e

Re: Subversion 2.0

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:51 PM Markus Schaber wrote: > It's a very powerful feature, on par or even superior to other (D)VCSes - > as long as we manage to keep the interface clear enough that users can > handle everything. > > I'm always astonished how complicated GIT can be for seemingly "simp

1.9.12 test failure

FYI: [067/109] externals_tests.py.FAILURE [068/109] getopt_tests.pymake: *** [check] Error 1 Platform: macOS 10.13.6 Investigating... be back soon. By the way, is there a script that generates the list of dependencies and their versions?

Re: 1.9.12 test failure

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:57 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > FYI: > > [067/109] > externals_tests.py.FAILURE > > Apologies for the noise. This was caused by a volume full error! I'll rerun on a bigger volume and let you know.

Re: 1.9.12 test failure

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:10 PM Julian Foad wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote: > > Apologies for the noise. This was caused by a volume full error! > > > > I'll rerun on a bigger volume and let you know. > > Hehe. Glad to know you're testing it. > Thanks

subversion-1.9.12 tests successful on macOS

I used get-deps.sh, but modified the zlib version to 1.2.11 and download address to https://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.gz because it failed to get zlib. Summary of test results: 2223 tests PASSED 83 tests SKIPPED 47 tests XFAILED (1 WORK-IN-PROGRESS) SUMMARY: All tests successful. Platfor

subversion-1.9.12 tests successful on Linux

Same comment as before on modifying get-deps.sh to pull zlib 1.2.11 from https://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.gz. Platform: Linux (Debian "Stretch") x86_64 Summary of test results: 2225 tests PASSED 83 tests SKIPPED 45 tests XFAILED (1 WORK-IN-PROGRESS) SUMMARY: All tests successful.

subversion-1.10.6: tests successful on Linux

Same note as before: Modified get-deps.sh to use zlib 1.2.11 from https://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.gz Platform: Linux (Debian "Stretch") x86_64 Summary of test results: 2415 tests PASSED 94 tests SKIPPED 57 tests XFAILED (1 WORK-IN-PROGRESS) SUMMARY: All tests successful.

subversion-1.10.6: tests successful on macOS

Same as before: Modified get-deps.sh to use zlib 1.2.11 from https://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.gz Summary of test results: 2413 tests PASSED 94 tests SKIPPED 59 tests XFAILED (1 WORK-IN-PROGRESS) SUMMARY: All tests successful.

subversion-1.12.2: tests successful on Linux

Same note as earlier: Modified get-deps.sh to use zlib 1.2.11 from https://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.gz Platform: Linux (Debian "Stretch") x86_64 Summary of test results: 2526 tests PASSED 97 tests SKIPPED 87 tests XFAILED (17 WORK-IN-PROGRESS) SUMMARY: All tests successful.

Re: 1.9.12 test failure

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:03 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote on Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:32 +00:00: > > I meant is there a script that generates the list of dependencies > > actually used on the test system. E.g., as in this testing/signing > > message

Re: 1.9.12 test failure

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:08 PM Mark Phippard wrote: > On Jul 26, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Nathan Hartman > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:03 PM Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > >> Also, I can't think of a reason why you shouldn't sign the tarballs. >> > &g

Re: Subversion 1.12.2: "svn diff --changelist ARG" broken in subdirectories?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:40 AM Tobias Bading wrote: > Hi. > > I just built Subversion 1.12.2 on GNU/Linux and "make check" didn't show > any problems. > But in this version, "svn diff --changelist ARG" only works in the root of > a working copy. In any subdirectory of the working copy, there's n

Re: What comes after 1.12?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:06 PM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.08.2019 20:50, Paul Hammant wrote: > > If you all developed on trunk (patchsets for trunk, or direct to it), > > and had an automated CI build setup that tested all permutations in > > parallel, and a merging bot that attempted to cherry

Re: Change to Subversion PMC rule for approving backports

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:36 AM Julian Foad wrote: > > + A change needs three +1 votes (for an LTS release line) or one +1 vote > (for a non-LTS release line) from full committers (or partial committers > for the involved areas), and no vetoes, to go into A.B.x. snip - (If a change affects the

Re: Change to Subversion PMC rule for approving backports

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:54 AM Julian Foad wrote: > I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation at any > opportunity. Nearly all of it is much too long. It would be much better > to state the facts in a few bullet points, and move the discussion of > rationale and history t

Re: Python3 work [was: The run up to Subversion 1.13.0]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 8:23 AM Julian Foad wrote: > Thanks. I see no reason to make a special effort to have swig-py > bindings still support Python 2 for Subversion 1.13 and 1.14-LTS. In > fact, it's probably best if we explicitly remove Py2 support for 1.14, > to avoid getting trapped in mainte

Re: buildbot failure in on svn-bb-openbsd

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:54 PM wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder svn-bb-openbsd > while building . Full details are available at: >https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-bb-openbsd/builds/397 [snip] > Blamelist: hartmannathan Blame the new guy :-) Seems related to the

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:09 AM Julian Foad wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote in thread "Change to Subversion PMC rule for > approving backports": > > Julian Foad wrote: > >> I strongly urge that we simplify any and all of our documentation at any > >> opport

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:12 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 12.09.2019 05:00, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > I've been studying the site and there is a site-ng branch created > > 2015. I remember a discussion about it around that time but I can't > > find it in the archiv

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:45 PM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.09.2019 04:18, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:12 AM Branko Čibej > <mailto:br...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > On 12.09.2019 05:00, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > > I

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:08 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.09.2019 09:00, Julian Foad wrote: > > Nathan Hartman wrote: > >> Once there's actually something to show we can cross the bridge of > either asking Infra (nicely of course) or moving it to a subdirectory of

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:21 AM Julian Foad wrote: > Are you on Matrix or IRC? It's easier to continue this kind of > conversation there, if you are. Freenode #svn-dev, or > https://matrix.to/#/#freenode_#svn-dev:matrix.org Haven't reached my desk yet today. I'm emailing from my phone. :-)

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:18 AM Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.09.2019 14:16, Nathan Hartman wrote: >> If there are no objections I'll remove site-ng and create a branch >> from staging called staging-ng. I think it should be under site, >> adjacent to staging and publish

Re: Subversion 1.13.0-rc1 up for testing/signing

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Julian Foad wrote: > > Julian Foad wrote: > > The 1.13.0-rc1 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. > > Please get the tarballs from > >https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > > and add your signatures there. > > Is anyone going to

Re: Subversion 1.13.0-rc1 up for testing/signing

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:22 AM Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Contents of subversion-1.13.0-rc1.zip are identical to tags/1.13.0-rc1, > and to branches/1.13.x@1867053 (except for expected differences in > svn_version.h and svnpubsub, svnwcsub and nominate.pl (symlinks vs. file > contents), and generate

Re: Subversion 1.13.0-rc1 up for testing/signing

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:41 AM Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:54 AM Nathan Hartman > wrote: > > What do you use to compare the tarball contents to a working copy? > > Ah, good question :-). Thank you for your very detailed answer, including the time

Re: Subversion 1.13.0-rc1 up for testing/signing

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:17 AM Julian Foad wrote: > > The 1.13.0-rc1 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. > Please get the tarballs from >https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > and add your signatures there. Please bear with me and all my n00b questions... :

Re: Subversion 1.13.0-rc1 up for testing/signing

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:17 AM Julian Foad wrote: > > The 1.13.0-rc1 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. > Please get the tarballs from >https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > and add your signatures there. Signed! 1.13.0-rc1 +1 to release Tested on *nix p

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:40 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > Deleted site-ng in r1866904. > > Added site/staging-ng in r1866905.Regarding the site/staging-ng branch: Regarding the site/staging-ng branch: In the past, I've used two files from html5boilerplate.com: normalize.css and main

Re: Simplifying our documentation

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 11:56 AM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Nathan Hartman wrote on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:48 +00:00: > > html5boilerplate is under a MIT license: > > https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > > Can this (or snippets fro

Re: Link to KEYS file on our download page

Nathan Hartman wrote: > The ASF committer keys list (https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/) > is showing my key as "key not found." Not really sure what to do about > that. I checked again and my key is found now. :-) > Also, some ASF help page (that I can't seem

Re: Link to KEYS file on our download page

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:32 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote on Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:41 +00:00: > > If there's anything else I need to do, please let me know. > > For bonus points, get your key cross-signed and linked to the web of trust :) Agreed. I am keepin

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

ss from html5boilerplate.com and improve the navigation bar to make the static pages mobile friendly. Python 3 support task: I think something Python-related should be on the list. How about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-2079 "utf8_tests.py should be made non-iso8859-1 specific" Thoughts? Other items we should consider? Nathan

Issue tracker review [was: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:13 AM Julian Foad wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-1722 "svn > > diff may missreport a revision as the working copy." > > Errm... last reviewed 9 years ago. Is it really what it says it is?

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:49 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > Since there will be 700+ university participants, there may be a > variety of different skill sets, but we don't know what they are. > > Let's make a list of 2 or 3 items, each from a different skill area. > > Per

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 5:43 PM Sally Khudairi wrote: > Hello PMCs --I hope you are well. > > We received an email from hackCBS 2.0, a hackathon that will be taking place > 19-20 October at the University of Delhi with 700+ students. > > They are interested in our participation by providing a list

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:15 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:24:28 -0400: > > * Documentation: > > > > - SVN-3914 - INSTALL: document how to compile with libmagic on > > Windows. > > https://issues.apache.

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:48 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:36 +00:00: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:15 PM Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > > > > > Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:24:28 -0400: > > > > * D

Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)

lding with libmagic on Windows in the build scripts and document it in INSTALL. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-3914?issueNumber=3914 Nathan

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >