Re: Problem comiting on trunk...
On 6/4/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip subversion/libsvn_client/commit.c:873: (apr_err=175002) svn: Commit failed (details follow): subversion/libsvn_ra_dav/util.c:296: (apr_err=175002) svn: MKACTIVITY of '/repos/asf/!svn/act/2d4850ad-6c15-0410-93f7- d4cfeea00f44': 403 Forbidden (http://svn.apache.org) subversion/clients/cmdline/util.c:407: (apr_err=175002) svn: Your commit message was left in a temporary file: subversion/clients/cmdline/util.c:407: (apr_err=175002) svn:'/Users/jason/ws/apache/geronimo/trunk/svn-commit.2.tmp' /snip ... I'm not really even sure what that svn error message is trying to tell me, short of a 403 Forbidden... Possibly that the change wasn't discussed so the server rejected it ;) Serious now. It might've been because you attempted to commit your changes to http://svn.apache.org rather than https://svn.apache.org. It's a shot in the dark so take it with a pinch of salt ;) --jason Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Problem comiting on trunk...
Possibly that the change wasn't discussed so the server rejected it ;) Um... ya... does the community expect that all changes, even the most trivial need to be discussed, agreed up, documented in triplicate and faxed to the four corners of the earth. Hope not... else we are not going to get much done. ;-) Serious now. It might've been because you attempted to commit your changes to http://svn.apache.org rather than https://svn.apache.org. It's a shot in the dark so take it with a pinch of salt ;) I think you are right, I must have checked out the tree w/http not https. Thanks :-) --jason
Re: Problem comiting on trunk...
On 6/5/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um... ya... does the community expect that all changes, even the most trivial need to be discussed, agreed up, documented in triplicate and faxed to the four corners of the earth. Hope not... else we are not going to get much done. ;-) Well, it's personal matter which change is trival and which is not, isn't it? So, your last resort would be to *not* introduce trivial changes ;) --jason Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Problem comiting on trunk...
Well, it's personal matter which change is trival and which is not, isn't it? So, your last resort would be to *not* introduce trivial changes ;) I guess... I think we need to change minotaur refs to people... as infra has stated that the CNAME for the service should be used instead of the hostname, which I am in complete agreement with. So, do we need to vote on this? Or should we just change it? --jason
Re: Problem comiting on trunk...
On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well, it's personal matter which change is trival and which is not, isn't it? So, your last resort would be to *not* introduce trivial changes ;) I guess... I think we need to change minotaur refs to people... as infra has stated that the CNAME for the service should be used instead of the hostname, which I am in complete agreement with. So, do we need to vote on this? Or should we just change it? Hi Jason, I think this is a bug -- we should not be using hostnames. There will be problems when/if minotaur is changed or resources are rehosted. You are fixing current function, not adding new capabilities. I think that's a useful metric... There are fixes, however, which I think should probably be reviewed. That's why I think some guidelines are needed to help us make this decisions without spending more time discussing whether a review is needed, than an actual review would have taken... ;-) --kevan
