On 01/24/2011 02:20 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
Linking the file pool to the pool of its parent dir has resulted in crashes
earlier. I seem to remember it's because the files are received after the
dir is already closed in the editor drive, but I don't remember all the
details.
I can't speak
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
Greg or Lieven, any thoughts here? -- justin
At least the one rev that fixes this issue, don't know if the other are
already working in
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 02:41:49PM +0100, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
Greg or Lieven, any thoughts here? -- justin
At least the one
Lieven Govaerts wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 14:41:49 +0100:
I'm running some tests on Linux, Windows 7 and Mac Os X. On the latter svn
trunk currently doesn't build for me (is_atomicity_error symbol not found),
but doesn't seem to be related to serf.
That's odd: in HEAD, that symbol only
On 23.01.2011 14:41, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com mailto:jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be
mailto:svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
Greg or Lieven, any thoughts
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Stefan Küng tortoise...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23.01.2011 14:41, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com mailto:jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
I'd appreciate some more testing, before I make the release later this week.
The code to get is:
http://serf.googlecode.com/svn/branches/0.7.x at r1427.
% uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 10.5.0: Fri Nov 5 23:20:39 PDT
On 23.01.2011 16:09, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
I've used a build from serf trunk for a while now without problems.
The serf log indicates that r1416 has been merged, but r1417 has
not. Is there a reason why this memory leak fix hasn't been merged
to 0.7.x?
r1417 is part of a
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Stefan Küng tortoise...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, tested with serf from the 0.7.x branch: memory rise is still higher than
with neon, indicating that there's still some (small) memory leak somewhere.
But checkouts and updates of even larger projects succeed without
On 23.01.2011 18:06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Stefan Küngtortoise...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, tested with serf from the 0.7.x branch: memory rise is still higher than
with neon, indicating that there's still some (small) memory leak somewhere.
But checkouts and
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Stefan Küng tortoise...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ok, tested with serf from the 0.7.x branch: memory rise is still higher
than
with neon, indicating that there's still some (small) memory
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
Things have changed since then though. Can anyone test with svn 1.6.x to see
how it uses memory?
For ra_serf, I'm wondering if we're creating an additional pool that
isn't necessary - namely the editor_pool.
I've done
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be
wrote:
Things have changed since then though. Can anyone test with svn 1.6.x to
see
how it uses memory?
For ra_serf, I'm wondering if we're
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net
wrote:
On 01/06/2011 03:48 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
On 06.01.2011 21:41, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts svn...@mobsol.be wrote:
Greg or Lieven, any thoughts here? -- justin
At least the one rev that fixes this issue, don't know if the other are
already working in all scenario's.
I'll look at it this weekend and make a release.
Woohoo. Thanks.
It looks like Philip's list was added to the issue tracker with the
1.7.0 milestone. Nice.
I know CMike has been going through that list and fixing, closing,
moving items. Are all of the items left in the list things that we
definitely want/need for the release? For example, I see a couple of
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net wrote:
On 01/06/2011 03:48 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
On 06.01.2011 21:41, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks for
over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public
Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:20:40PM +, Philip Martin wrote:
C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net writes:
What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization?
Performance, particulary on network disks, is still a concern. If
On 01/06/2011 06:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:41:42PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
WC-NG conflict storage? No... last I heard, we were going to ship with what
we have today.
I think we decided what we have today is fair enough to be released
and then built
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:11:29AM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 01/06/2011 06:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:41:42PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
WC-NG conflict storage? No... last I heard, we were going to ship with
what
we have today.
I think we
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks for
over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public broadcast thread about
it, at least -- but I've been wondering lately:
What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization?
ra_serf stabilization?
On 06.01.2011 21:41, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks for
over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public broadcast thread about
it, at least -- but I've been wondering lately:
What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching
On 01/06/2011 03:48 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
On 06.01.2011 21:41, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks for
over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public broadcast thread about
it, at least -- but I've been wondering lately:
C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net writes:
What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization?
Performance, particulary on network disks, is still a concern. If this
requires using fewer, bigger transactions then we really want to do that
before we branch.
The biggest
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:41:42PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I'm sorry if I asked this before -- I've been asking individual folks for
over a month now, but I can't quickly find a public broadcast thread about
it, at least -- but I've been wondering lately:
What, exactly, stands in
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:20:40PM +, Philip Martin wrote:
C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net writes:
What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization?
Performance, particulary on network disks, is still a concern. If this
requires using fewer, bigger
On 1/6/11 3:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
At this point I'd be happy with that criteria.
A general note on branching: I think we have for a while now been
stabilising on trunk, and as far as I'm concerned we can continue
to do so until we consider trunk releasable. I don't think branching
will
27 matches
Mail list logo
