Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:19 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) You appear to be assuming daily snapshots maintained forever in your
story - if so, how do you deal with network problems and the like? How
can you tell a commit that didn't make it to the
On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 11:39, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:19 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) You appear to be assuming daily snapshots maintained forever in your
story - if so, how do you deal with network problems and the
On March 16, 2004 09:52 pm, Kean Johnston wrote:
Do we need to buy a license?
No but if you send us money we'll donate it to the End Sarcasm
Campaign.
Is that a SCO project or some godless communist movement? I ask only
information...
Then some smart-ass thought it would be funny to throw
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:16:07PM -0800, Kean Johnston wrote:
By the way, for SCO OpenServer, I have a package called 'GWXLIBS' - it
My appologies ... I meant this to be a private reply but did not check
the address. For everyone who is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] please ignore.
Don't
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 10:52 AM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? How? Unless the committer signs (which ISTR was rejected as an
option
when I suggested it, so I'm assuming that doesn't happen), then they
must be
signed by the server - a successful
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:27 PM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't see how this defends against a malicious user that has owned the
server for long enough for his changes to have been rsynced to the secure
server?
Because it'd be read-only? That is, the changes won't be on
At 11:27 AM 3/16/2004, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 10:52 AM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? How? Unless the committer signs (which ISTR was rejected as an option
when I suggested it, so I'm assuming that doesn't happen), then they must
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:27 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how this defends against a malicious user that has owned the
server for long enough for his changes to have been rsynced to the
secure
server?
Because it'd be read-only? That
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:27 AM 3/16/2004, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 10:52 AM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? How? Unless the committer signs (which ISTR was rejected as an option
when I suggested it, so I'm assuming that
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 21:20, Ben Laurie wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:27 AM 3/16/2004, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 10:52 AM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? How? Unless the committer signs (which ISTR was
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:15:26PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:39, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 12:02, Joshua Slive wrote:
Disadvantages of moving to subversion:
- Not as portable (?)
(Subversion clients/servers run anywhere APR does.
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:03, Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:15:26PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
neon has been the most limiting dependency for a client, I am told.
Mmm, such juicy tempting FUD. Your anonymous informant should report
portability bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Can we please move this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lot of the points discussed aren't about technical problems of httpd
moving over, but overall topics concerning our setup. Most of the
concerns that have come up are
On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
neon has been the most limiting dependency for a client, I am told.
Mmm, such juicy tempting FUD. Your anonymous informant should report
portability bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED], rather than spreading gossip,
since
Oh come on - migration is not
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:19 PM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
c) You appear to be assuming daily snapshots maintained forever in your
story - if so, how do you deal with network problems and the like? How
can you tell a commit that didn't make it to the secure server because
of
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:19, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Can we please move this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lot of the points discussed aren't about technical problems of httpd
moving over, but overall topics concerning our
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:41:12PM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
neon has been the most limiting dependency for a client, I am told.
Mmm, such juicy tempting FUD. Your anonymous informant should report
portability bugs to [EMAIL
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:39:48 -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 12:02, Joshua Slive wrote:
Disadvantages of moving to subversion:
- Not as portable (?)
(Subversion clients/servers run anywhere APR does. I think that's
actually more portable than CVS, since I don't
--On Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:47 AM +1000 Brian Havard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, being on a dialup link I currently rsync the cvs repository to a
local machine do all my checkout/update/diff/log etc operations from
there only commit across the link. Can I do that with subversion or
are all configure related and the usual ones: QNX 4, FreeBSD 3.1 with
IPv6 patch and SCO openserver 5.0.x... but we are working through them
By the way, for SCO OpenServer, I have a package called 'GWXLIBS' - it
stands for Graphics, Web and X11 Libraries. It ships standard in SCO
OpenServer
By the way, for SCO OpenServer, I have a package called 'GWXLIBS' - it
My appologies ... I meant this to be a private reply but did not check
the address. For everyone who is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] please ignore.
Kean
On March 16, 2004 09:10 pm, Kean Johnston wrote:
You can get the latest from
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc
Its one-stop shopping for most of the useful open
source libraries.
Do we need to buy a license?
Cheers,
Geoff
--
Geoff Thorpe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do we need to buy a license?
No but if you send us money we'll donate it to the End Sarcasm Campaign.
Kean
: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository
Do we need to buy a license?
No but if you send us money we'll donate it to the End Sarcasm Campaign.
Kean
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
can someone remind me why we are
A: putting stuff up at of all places sco?
You're not. Someone mentioned the lack of availability for some
libraries that were a pre-requisite for SVN on some OSes, OpenServer
being one of them, and I intended to reply to him privately but
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
can someone remind me why we are
A: putting stuff up at of all places sco?
You're not. Someone mentioned the lack of availability
* Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your going to be forcing people to install some other piece of software.
while this might be fine for a lot of people, some won't or can't.
Some IDE's don't have SVN support yet, and some people have to deal with
sysadmins who think redhat 5.2 is
--On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as the GNU, ASF, and SF projects all discovered, full backups by third
parties are invaluable. What is the equivalent to rsync, and is it as stable?
I think you mean cvsup not rsync. We're currently
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as the GNU, ASF, and SF projects all discovered, full backups by third
parties are invaluable. What is the equivalent to rsync, and is it as
stable?
I think you mean cvsup not
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 11:52, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as the GNU, ASF, and SF projects all discovered, full backups by third
parties are invaluable. What is the equivalent to
your going to be forcing people to install some other piece of software.
while this might be fine for a lot of people, some won't or can't.
Some IDE's don't have SVN support yet, and some people have to deal with
sysadmins who think redhat 5.2 is acceptable work environment to develop
with.
I'm
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 10:52 AM + Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is? How? Unless the committer signs (which ISTR was rejected as an option
when I suggested it, so I'm assuming that doesn't happen), then they must be
signed by the server - a successful attacker can therefore sign
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 4:47 AM -0800 Kean Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
people have worked very hard to make it work, and its good. But at the same
time, one should be careful of falling into the when you have a new hammer
everything looks like a nail trap.
Subversion serves *exactly*
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
As I mentioned to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]'ers I would feel much safer moving 2.1-dev
over to SVN (with APR 1.0) and leaving 2.0/apr 0.9 alone to the end of
their useful life.
Ugh. That sounds like it will make back-porting even more of a pain
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 1:02 PM -0500 Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disadvantages of moving to subversion:
...
- Backups/integrity (fixable?)
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that's an advantage with Subversion:
on-the-wire checksums, repository checksums, (incremental) backups,
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as the GNU, ASF, and SF projects all discovered, full backups by third
parties are invaluable. What is the equivalent to rsync, and is it as stable?
I
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 12:02, Joshua Slive wrote:
Disadvantages of moving to subversion:
- Not as portable (?)
(Subversion clients/servers run anywhere APR does. I think that's
actually more portable than CVS, since I don't believe CVS pserver runs
on win32 at all.)
--On Monday, March 15, 2004 1:29 PM -0600 C. Michael Pilato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin, what's being done about unversioned properties (since those
can change at any time)? Do you have post-revprop-change hook setup
to squirrel away those mods so that they could be restored should the
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:39, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 12:02, Joshua Slive wrote:
Disadvantages of moving to subversion:
- Not as portable (?)
(Subversion clients/servers run anywhere APR does. I think that's
actually more portable than CVS, since I don't believe
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:29, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as the GNU, ASF, and SF projects all discovered, full backups by third
parties are invaluable.
I would +1 moving over after release of 2.0.49 and 1.3.30... :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would +1 moving over after release of 2.0.49 and 1.3.30... :)
+1
Bill
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
-1
This will, at least for now, raise the bar to entry for contributors.
-aaron
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
-1
This will, at least for now,
On 13.03.2004, at 14:04, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
+1.
I've proposed the same on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list with respect to the APR
project. It
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andre Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
At 03:12 PM 3/13/2004, Sander Striker wrote:
On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 21:35, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
So when?
Can
* Sander Striker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hi,
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
+1.
-Thom
--On Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:04 PM +0100 Sander Striker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
+1. -- justin
* Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
I've played around a bit within the test repos. Seems it works ;-))
So +1.
nd
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
So when?
Can we get some lead time (7-10 days from the time there is a complete httpd
and apr snapshot in subversion to
On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 21:35, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I hereby would like to propose that we move the HTTP Server project
codebase to the Subversion repository at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/.
So when?
Can we get some lead time (7-10 days from the time
Ofcourse. Your idea of giving lead time starting when we have a test
snapshot is very sensible. Lets make that 14 days from then, so that
everyone has plenty of time to address issues.
I would not mind a bit more time than just 14 day s - (I spend the last
72
hours trying to get subversion to
53 matches
Mail list logo
