Branko Čibej :
> On 22.01.2021 05:23, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Notably: dump-load-format.txt does not describe the delta format. I
> > have since seen hints in the SVN Book that version 3 uses some kind of
> > binary delta compression. But the SVN book does not describe either
> > of these
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 09:20:52AM -0500, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:07 AM 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/621
>
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:07 AM 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/621
>
> Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/
>
> Buildslave for this Build:
On 22.01.2021 05:23, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Notably: dump-load-format.txt does not describe the delta format. I
have since seen hints in the SVN Book that version 3 uses some kind of
binary delta compression. But the SVN book does not describe either
of these details; it's not even clear
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
For such a trivial change? Nah.
- Julian
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:35 skrev Julian Foad :
> +1.
>
r1886227, kept the third and fourth lines of the comment unchanged since
the suggested change was >80 chars.
Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
/Daniel Sahlberg
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:19 skrev Julian Foad :
> (Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
>
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> > [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it
> easier to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
> >
> > - /* Iterate over
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Like this?
> /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge.
>* Iterate in a parent-to-child order so that inherited mergeinfo is
> propagated
>* consistently from each parent path to its children. (Issue #4862) */
+1.
- Julian
(Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
>
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
> - /* Iterate over the paths in a
Den tors 4 feb. 2021 kl 13:56 skrev Stefan Sperling :
> The 1.14.1 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.
>
I've downloaded the subversion-1.14.1.zip and
Hi,
When going through the code for 1.14.1, I looked at r1880192. Is it
intentional to have both comments?
When I'm reading the comment and trying to understand the code I'm half
expecting to have two different (possibly nested) loops.
/* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added
12 matches
Mail list logo
