On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Philip Martin writes:
>>
>>> There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
>>>
>>> 1) Failure:
>>> test_change
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
>>
>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
>>
>> 1) Failure:
>> test_changelists_get_with_block(SvnClientTest)
>> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buil
Joe Swatosh writes:
> From that perspective, it seems to me that the best approach is to use
> the Set in the test, but not in the bindings themselves. Also the
> current APIs don't provide order guarantees (obviously), but if they
> started to guarantee order in the future, the Set may be a bad
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright writes:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Philip Martin
>>>
>>> We fix these by converting the arrays to sets so that the order is
>>> irrelevant. The open question is whether we do this solely within the
>>> testsuite, c
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:30:31 +0100:
>> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buildslave/svn-x64-ubuntu/build/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb:764:in
>> `test_diff_callbacks_for_backward_compatibility':
>> <[[:dir_props_c
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:30:31 +0100:
> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buildslave/svn-x64-ubuntu/build/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb:764:in
> `test_diff_callbacks_for_backward_compatibility':
> <[[:dir_props_changed,
> "/tmp/d20120327-16259-17t4nz8/wc",
> [# @n
Hyrum K Wright writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Philip Martin
>>
>> We fix these by converting the arrays to sets so that the order is
>> irrelevant. The open question is whether we do this solely within the
>> testsuite, changing both sides of the comparison, or whether we change
>> t
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
>>
>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
>>
>> 1) Failure:
>> test_changelists_get_with_block(SvnClientTest)
>> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buil
Philip Martin writes:
> There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
>
> 1) Failure:
> test_changelists_get_with_block(SvnClientTest)
> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buildslave/svn-x64-ubuntu/build/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/te
Joe Swatosh wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 07:36:16 -0700:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
> > There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
> >
> > http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
> >
> > 1) Failure:
> > test_changelists_get_with_block(SvnC
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> There is another failure in the ruby testsuite:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/4626
>
> 1) Failure:
> test_changelists_get_with_block(SvnClientTest)
> /var/lib/buildbot/svn-buildslave/svn-x64-ubuntu/build/subvers
Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 23:53:43 -0800:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
> > Perhaps Ev2 will need testsuite changes, but I'm not really concerned
> > with the testsuite here. What I'm interested in here is whether an
> > admin can expect
> >
> >
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Perhaps Ev2 will need testsuite changes, but I'm not really concerned
> with the testsuite here. What I'm interested in here is whether an
> admin can expect
>
> svnadmin dump -rN repo > dump.txt
>
> to produce exactly the same output when
On 2/21/12 5:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:43 +:
The dumpfile order is more interesting. Although we don't specify the
dumpfile order until now it has been repeatable, at least when using the
same executable/libraries. I can see that this rep
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 21 februari 2012 14:14
>> To: Daniel Shahaf
>> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subje
"Bert Huijben" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 21 februari 2012 14:14
>> To: Daniel Shahaf
>> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: APR hash order
>>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 21 februari 2012 14:14
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: APR hash order
>
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote
Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 13:13:48 +:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:43 +:
> >> The dumpfile order is more interesting. Although we don't specify the
> >> dumpfile order until now it has been repeatable, at least when usi
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:43 +:
>> The dumpfile order is more interesting. Although we don't specify the
>> dumpfile order until now it has been repeatable, at least when using the
>> same executable/libraries. I can see that this repeatabilit
Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:43 +:
> The dumpfile order is more interesting. Although we don't specify the
> dumpfile order until now it has been repeatable, at least when using the
> same executable/libraries. I can see that this repeatability is useful
> to an administr
20 matches
Mail list logo
