On 10.02.2015 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
I'd like to start a vote about merging the pin-externals branch to trunk.
This command shows the changes to be merged:
svn diff
On 10.02.2015 16:48, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:45:34PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
Looks OK, apart from the minor detail that all 10 pin-externals tests in
externals_tests.py are failing now.
Thanks for the heads up. This was due to the last sync with trunk which
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:45:34PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
Looks OK, apart from the minor detail that all 10 pin-externals tests in
externals_tests.py are failing now.
Thanks for the heads up. This was due to the last sync with trunk which
brought in changes from r1658410. I did a compile
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
I have proceeded to implement 'svnsync' cross-checking in the test
suite: running every repository produced by a test through 'svnsync' and
checking there is no change.
This turns up at least one further bug: assertion failure on deleting a
mergeinfo property.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
Con:
- some people have seen the tool and may have used it
with its current name
Neutral:
* renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc - svnmucc)
For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
if test
On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
Con:
- some people have seen the tool and may have used it
with its current name
Neutral:
* renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc - svnmucc)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:06:25PM +, Julian Foad wrote:
I don't have any objection to merging this to trunk. Comments from a partial
review follow.
I'd like to repeat my request for a written description of what pinning
means. Specifically, the condition for an external definition to
Stefan Sperling wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
[...] should preserve the exact textual form of the {DATE} spec. I'm not
sure if it currently does.
That has been fixed in r1655872. The date string is preserved now.
Not in that commit, but it does look like it's been fixed in a later commit,
but
Stefan Sperling wrote:
svn diff https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk@r1658686 \
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/pin-externals
Some bugs have been fixed and the regression test has been made
more fine-grained so tests can be run individually.
Please
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
Con:
- some people have seen the tool and may have used it
with its current name
On 11 February 2015 at 00:28, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
Con:
- some people
On 10.02.2015 19:34, Julian Foad wrote:
Stefan Sperling wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
[...] should preserve the exact textual form of the {DATE} spec. I'm not
sure if it currently does.
That has been fixed in r1655872. The date string is preserved now.
Not in that commit, but it does look like
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
I'd like to start a vote about merging the pin-externals branch to trunk.
This command shows the changes to be merged:
svn diff https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk@1655241 \
I suspect the implementation is now more complicated than necessary.
walk_locks and walk_locks_baton could be removed, walk_digest_files
could be renamed to indicate that only a single digest file is accessed.
The callers of walk_locks would call the renamed function directly.
Yes. I'm going
14 matches
Mail list logo
