Eric Wong writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Unless you found a reason not to in the meantime, that is. Is what
>> I have on 'pu' still good, or do you (Eric and/or Michael) have any
>> updates you'd rather have me pull instead?
>
> No updates, everything is still good.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscri
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Unless you found a reason not to in the meantime, that is. Is what
> I have on 'pu' still good, or do you (Eric and/or Michael) have any
> updates you'd rather have me pull instead?
No updates, everything is still good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Eric Wong wrote:
>>> "Michael G. Schwern" wrote:
>>
This patch series fixes git-svn for SVN 1.7 tested against SVN 1.7.5 and
1.6.18. Patch 7/8 is where SVN 1.7 starts passing.
>>>
>>> Thanks Michael. I've made minor edi
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:58:08AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Thanks from me as well. I'm still worried about whether the increased
> > > use of canonicalize_url will introduce regressions for the existing
> > > SVN 1.6 support, and I should have time to look
Eric Wong writes:
> Eric Wong wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Eric Wong writes:
>> > > Thanks for reminding me, I went back to an old chroot 1.4.2 indeed
>> > > does fail canonicalization.
>> > >
>> > > Will bisect and squash a fix in.
>> >
>> > Oops; should I eject this out of next and
Eric Wong wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Eric Wong writes:
> > > Thanks for reminding me, I went back to an old chroot 1.4.2 indeed
> > > does fail canonicalization.
> > >
> > > Will bisect and squash a fix in.
> >
> > Oops; should I eject this out of next and wait for a reroll, then?
>
>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Wong writes:
> > Thanks for reminding me, I went back to an old chroot 1.4.2 indeed
> > does fail canonicalization.
> >
> > Will bisect and squash a fix in.
>
> Oops; should I eject this out of next and wait for a reroll, then?
Your call, I doubt anybody on next use
Eric Wong writes:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Thanks from me as well. I'm still worried about whether the increased
>> use of canonicalize_url will introduce regressions for the existing
>> SVN 1.6 support, and I should have time to look it over this weekend.
>>
>> The comment in canonicalize_
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Thanks from me as well. I'm still worried about whether the increased
> use of canonicalize_url will introduce regressions for the existing
> SVN 1.6 support, and I should have time to look it over this weekend.
>
> The comment in canonicalize_url "There wasn't a 1.6 way
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:58:08AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Thanks from me as well. I'm still worried about whether the increased
> > use of canonicalize_url will introduce regressions for the existing
> > SVN 1.6 support, and I should have time to look it over this weekend.
>
> Likewise
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Hi,
>
> Eric Wong wrote:
>> "Michael G. Schwern" wrote:
>
>>> This patch series fixes git-svn for SVN 1.7 tested against SVN 1.7.5 and
>>> 1.6.18. Patch 7/8 is where SVN 1.7 starts passing.
>>
>> Thanks Michael. I've made minor editorial changes (mostly rewording
>> c
Hi,
Eric Wong wrote:
> "Michael G. Schwern" wrote:
>> This patch series fixes git-svn for SVN 1.7 tested against SVN 1.7.5 and
>> 1.6.18. Patch 7/8 is where SVN 1.7 starts passing.
>
> Thanks Michael. I've made minor editorial changes (mostly rewording
> commit titles to fit the larger project
"Michael G. Schwern" wrote:
> This patch series fixes git-svn for SVN 1.7 tested against SVN 1.7.5 and
> 1.6.18. Patch 7/8 is where SVN 1.7 starts passing.
Thanks Michael. I've made minor editorial changes (mostly rewording
commit titles to fit the larger project).
Junio:
The following change
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> That's the part that doesn't matter. People matter.
> What I'm trying to say is I have much less interest in doing it without the
> overloading. It's not interesting to me. It's no fun. No fun means no
> patch. No patch means no improvement. No improvement is the
On 2012.7.31 4:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> What I won't accept is "maintainability does not matter". It does.
I'm sorry, that's not what I intended to convey at all. My reply to Eric lays
it out more clearly, I think.
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away
On 2012.7.31 1:01 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> It just doesn't matter.
>>
>> Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now,
>> or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic
>> work to be done improving git-svn? The c
Eric Wong writes:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> It just doesn't matter.
>>
>> Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now,
>> or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic
>> work to be done improving git-svn? The code is undocumente
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It just doesn't matter.
>
> Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now,
> or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic
> work to be done improving git-svn? The code is undocumented, lacking unit
> tests, di
It just doesn't matter.
Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now,
or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic
work to be done improving git-svn? The code is undocumented, lacking unit
tests, difficult to understand and riddled with
Eric Wong writes:
> Perhaps we can depend on the URI.pm module? It seems to be
> widely-available and not be a significant barrier to installation. On
> the other hand, I don't know its history, either (especially since we're
> now dealing with SVN changes...).
>
> Anyways, I don't like relying
On 2012.7.30 7:18 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> On 2012.7.30 3:15 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
Right now, canonicalization is a bug generator. Paths and URLs have to be
in
the same form when they're compared. This requires meticulous care on the
part of the code
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2012.7.30 3:15 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> >> Right now, canonicalization is a bug generator. Paths and URLs have to be
> >> in
> >> the same form when they're compared. This requires meticulous care on the
> >> part of the coder and reviewer to check every comparison.
On 2012.7.30 3:15 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> Right now, canonicalization is a bug generator. Paths and URLs have to be in
>> the same form when they're compared. This requires meticulous care on the
>> part of the coder and reviewer to check every comparison. It scatters the
>> logic for proper com
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2012.7.30 1:38 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Anyways, I don't like relying on operator overloading, it makes code
> > harder to read and review.
>
> Right now, canonicalization is a bug generator. Paths and URLs have to be in
> the same form when they're compared. This
On 2012.7.30 1:38 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
>> A better solution would be to have path and URL objects which overload
>> the eq operator and automatically stringify canonicalized and escaped.
>
> Perhaps we can depend on the URI.pm module? It seems to be
> widely-available and not be a significant bar
"Michael G. Schwern" wrote:
> There is one exception. t9100-git-svn-basic.sh fails 11-13. This appears
> to be due to a bug in SVN to do with symlinks. Leave that for somebody
> else, this is the final submission in the series.
That's fine, a few failing tests is better than completely failing
This patch series fixes git-svn for SVN 1.7 tested against SVN 1.7.5 and
1.6.18. Patch 7/8 is where SVN 1.7 starts passing.
There is one exception. t9100-git-svn-basic.sh fails 11-13. This appears
to be due to a bug in SVN to do with symlinks. Leave that for somebody
else, this is the final su
27 matches
Mail list logo
