Re: svn commit: r1785754 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_error_codes.h libsvn_fs_fs/cached_data.c libsvn_fs_fs/cached_data.h libsvn_fs_fs/transaction.c tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
stef...@apache.org wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 19:53:55 -: > Author: stefan2 > Date: Mon Mar 6 19:53:55 2017 > New Revision: 1785754 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1785754=rev > Log: > Make FSFS consistency no longer depend on hash algorithms. First of all, thanks for fixing

Re: svn commit: r1785734 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
stef...@apache.org wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 19:05:45 -: > +static svn_error_t * > +test_rep_sharing_strict_content_check(const svn_test_opts_t *opts, > + apr_pool_t *pool) > +{ > + /* Bail (with success) on known-untestable scenarios */ > + if

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Doug Robinson
Daniel: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4674 Thank you. Doug On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:15:04 -0500: > > > > Doug Robinson wrote: > > > Traceback (most

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 17:22:14 +0100: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:06:44PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I can reproduce this using the FS API only (without the contrib/ script): > > Hmm, looks like the contrib script is using the API wrong. > Check out what 'svnadmin

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:22:14PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:06:44PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I can reproduce this using the FS API only (without the contrib/ script): > > Hmm, looks like the contrib script is using the API wrong. > Check out what 'svnadmin

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:06:44PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > I can reproduce this using the FS API only (without the contrib/ script): Hmm, looks like the contrib script is using the API wrong. Check out what 'svnadmin unlock' does: [[[ /* Open the repos/FS, and associate an access context

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread C. Michael Pilato
Yes, please do. On 03/06/2017 10:15 AM, Doug Robinson wrote: > Folks: > > I realize that the SHA1-collision issues are consuming most of the > duty cycles at this point. Before I forget about this one - should I > file a bug? > > Cheers! > > Doug > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Doug Robinson

'svn lock -q' (was: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?)

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 16:06:44 +: > I can reproduce this using the FS API only (without the contrib/ script): While reproducing this I ran into: % svn lock -q a Subcommand 'lock' doesn't accept option '-q [--quiet]' Type 'svn help lock' for usage. I assume

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:15:04 -0500: > > Doug Robinson wrote: > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > > > File "hook-scripts/remove-zombie-locks.py", line 214, in > > > > main() > > > > File "hook-scripts/remove-zombie-locks.py",

Re: Suspected issue with "remove-zombie-locks.py"?

2017-03-06 Thread Doug Robinson
Folks: I realize that the SHA1-collision issues are consuming most of the duty cycles at this point. Before I forget about this one - should I file a bug? Cheers! Doug On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Doug Robinson wrote: > Folks: > > The following commands were

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:19:00PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > I think there are two separate questions here: > > - Should we release alpha2 > > - Should we release alpha3 with sha1 fixes > > I'm happy to join the consensus and +1 the latter. However, I also +1 > the former. I don't see a

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:52:03 +0100: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing. >>> >>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on >>> Windows.

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing. The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows. The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

2017-03-06 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing. > > The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows. > The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880. > > Full committers,