TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
for Subversion and large binary objects.", next steps are reviewing and
handling the outstanding
Johan, that's a great start, thanks.
Now can you run the test suite with --wc-format-version=1.15? On Unixy
systems that is done by, for example:
$ make svnserveautocheck WC_FORMAT_VERSION=1.15 ...
Jun Omae wrote:
>> FAIL: diff_tests.py 48: svn diff --diff-cmd provides the correct arguments
>
Julian Foad wrote:
> Pristines (#525):
> - #4888 authz denied during textbase sync
>(an edge case issue, not sure if it's a blocker)
> - #4889 per-WC config
>(wanted)
> - #4891 fix disabled tests
>(a few different edge cases; much of the analysis is posted in the issue)
>
> Getting
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:31 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> Now can you run the test suite with --wc-format-version=1.15? On Unixy
> systems that is done by, for example:
>
> $ make svnserveautocheck WC_FORMAT_VERSION=1.15 ...
Okay, passing that option to win-tests.py (the test runner on Windows)
Nathan Hartman wrote:
> The branch worked for me when I last tested it and I saw no glaring
> issues so I have no objections to merging it soon. That said, I would
> encourage, if at all feasible, that we try to do two things first:
> decouple the format 32 and pod525 feature, and decide what the
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:31 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> Jun Omae wrote:
> >> FAIL: diff_tests.py 48: svn diff --diff-cmd provides the correct arguments
> >
> > I've posted patch for the failure.
> > See https://lists.apache.org/thread/2o0xtqfzy9xg8wzxscj2wb641p2kyo9c
>
> Thank you, Jun Omae. Sorry,
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>Should be fixed now, with r1899654.
Great! Thanks.
>I suppose not passing the option uses wc-format-version=1.15
No...
>automatically? Or what is the default? Is format 1.8 the same as 1.14
>and anything in between?
Default would be the format '31' which is 1.8 through
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:07:15AM -0400, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > We should have enough signatures according to ASF rules (need 3 signatures
> > by PMC members), but not for our own cross-platform testing requirements
> > (there is only one windows signature so far).
> >
> > Should we fail to
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Ah, yes, I think that makes #4889 a blocker.
Well, I'm having a hard time deciding what exactly we need and why.
I previously said "it's pretty clear it needs to be uncoupled" but
actually just now I've dived into it for a couple of hours, coding and
thinking, and it's
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and
> available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed
> by this Sunday.
>
> The plan is to make the release available on Tuesday April 12.
>
> Thanks
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:49 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and
> > available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed
> > by this Sunday.
> >
> > The
Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and
available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed
by this Sunday.
The plan is to make the release available on Tuesday April 12.
Thanks
Mark
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:07 AM Nathan Hartman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:49 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> > Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and
>> > available for testing and signatures.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:43 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
> ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
>
> As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
> for Subversion and large binary objects.",
Okay, with --wc-format-version=1.8, I now get these (X)FAILs and
XPASSes (fails_wc-format-version1.8.log in attachment):
[[[
XFAIL: diff-diff3-test 18: 3-way merge, double add
XFAIL: dirent_uri-test 47: test match with RFC 6125 s. 6.4.3 Rule 3
XFAIL: op-depth-test 42: mixed_rev_move
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:47 PM Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> This is in fails.log for that one FAIL:
> [[[
> ...
> File "C:\Python39\lib\sre_parse.py", line 426, in _escape
> raise source.error("bad escape %s" % escape, len(escape))
> re.error: bad escape \c at position 32 (line 1, column 33)
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
