On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:25, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-09-24, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:16, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > I think we should produce a test framework that can give us a WC
>>> > containing a
I'd rather have O(1) hand-crafted wc's than all 950 wc's the test suite
generates, of which likely 99% are 'normal'... (especially as it's the
end-of-run state, after any conflicts have been resolved etc)
Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 05:47:36 -0400:
> I took the 1.6.x branch and ran th
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:25, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-24, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:16, Julian Foad wrote:
>> >...
>> > I think we should produce a test framework that can give us a WC
>> > containing all the different possible WC states. Then we can write
>>
On Fri, 2010-09-24, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:16, Julian Foad wrote:
> >...
> > I think we should produce a test framework that can give us a WC
> > containing all the different possible WC states. Then we can write
> > tests against this framework, some tests that test speci
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:16, Julian Foad wrote:
>...
> I think we should produce a test framework that can give us a WC
> containing all the different possible WC states. Then we can write
> tests against this framework, some tests that test specific state, and
> other tests that apply the same
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 01:40 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> So I've been thinking of how we upgrade working copies to the new
> NODES table. As before, we have two scenarios to be concerned with:
>
> 1. formats 4..10: releases 1.0 thru 1.6
> 2. formats 11..19: 1.7-dev
>
> For (1), we rev
6 matches
Mail list logo
