You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> on 2003/03/06 19:16:53 UTC
Upcoming 0.19 release.
I see that the good old status page has 0.19 down for a release, uh,
today.
I see that the only remaining 0.19 marked issue is 1077.
Are we in fact releasing today?
If not, what are the remaining issues and who will contact me when they
are finished?
Thanks.
Michael
P.S. Saturday has officially been moved. It likes its new home although
many of its belongings are still in boxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
>
>
>I think we have a branch for the FS refactoring now,
>
gat stokes the fire under his coffee pot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
=?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> I think we have a branch for the FS refactoring now, so I expect someone
> will revert the trunk commit soon. After that happens -- and I
> successfully build on Win32 :-) -- I see no further problems.
Am reverting now! How'd you know? ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Benjamin Pflugmann <be...@pflugmann.de>.
On Thu 2003-03-06 at 16:25:06 -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Benjamin Pflugmann <be...@pflugmann.de> writes:
> > > What about the mod_dav backwards compatability thing? Did I miss the
> > > commit(s) that handled this?
> >
> > AFAICT, that was what the original mail from Brane was about. In r5225
> > cmpilato reverted r5212.
>
> No, that's something different.
Oops. You are right, of course. Sorry about the confusion.
Benjamin, who shouldn't pretend thinking that late. :-/
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Benjamin Pflugmann <be...@pflugmann.de> writes:
> > What about the mod_dav backwards compatability thing? Did I miss the
> > commit(s) that handled this?
>
> AFAICT, that was what the original mail from Brane was about. In r5225
> cmpilato reverted r5212.
No, that's something different. The dav compat problem is about
UUIDs. I don't have the thread handy, but it was pretty recent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Benjamin Pflugmann <be...@pflugmann.de>.
On Thu 2003-03-06 at 17:51:18 -0500, Michael Price wrote:
> > > Yup, Win32 builds again on trunk. Go ahead and release, as far as I'm
> > > concerned.
> > >
> > > Don't you just love how fast thing sometimes move around here? :-)
> >
> > Actually, can you hold off for one more change? I wanna add a 'pool'
> > parameter to RA->get_dir(), too. Just 'make check'ing now.
>
> What about the mod_dav backwards compatability thing? Did I miss the
> commit(s) that handled this?
AFAICT, that was what the original mail from Brane was about. In r5225
cmpilato reverted r5212.
HTH,
Benjamin.
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> What about the mod_dav backwards compatability thing? Did I miss the
> commit(s) that handled this?
Yeah, that problem is still there (that the server sends UUIDs which
older clients are still unprepared to receive).
I'll try out MBK's self-declaredly untested patch, and post the
results. It'll be a while, but you should see a mail and/or a commit
before the night is no longer young :-).
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> > Yup, Win32 builds again on trunk. Go ahead and release, as far as I'm
> > concerned.
> >
> > Don't you just love how fast thing sometimes move around here? :-)
>
> Actually, can you hold off for one more change? I wanna add a 'pool'
> parameter to RA->get_dir(), too. Just 'make check'ing now.
What about the mod_dav backwards compatability thing? Did I miss the
commit(s) that handled this?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
=?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> Yup, Win32 builds again on trunk. Go ahead and release, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> Don't you just love how fast thing sometimes move around here? :-)
Actually, can you hold off for one more change? I wanna add a 'pool'
parameter to RA->get_dir(), too. Just 'make check'ing now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Michael Price wrote:
>Branko $,1 ,(Bibej writes:
>
I keep being amazed at all the mail readers that still can't handle
UTF-8 in this day and age, but this interpretation earns the "Weirdo of
the Week" award. :-)
> > We can't roll 0.19 until the FS refactoring has stabilized (or moved to
> > a branch, whichever comes first) so that I can update the Win32 build
> > files. Right now, the Win32 build is broken, therefore 0.19 is a no-no.
> >
> > I think we have a branch for the FS refactoring now, so I expect someone
> > will revert the trunk commit soon. After that happens -- and I
> > successfully build on Win32 :-) -- I see no further problems.
>
>Cool. I'll look for the relevant commits and a followup email from you
>when the Win32 build is functional again.
>
>Michael
>
>
and later:
>Author: cmpilato
>Date: Thu Mar 6 16:10:45 2003
>New Revision: 5225
>
>Removed:
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/bdb-fs.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/bdb-fs.h
>Modified:
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/changes-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/changes-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/copies-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/copies-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/nodes-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/nodes-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/reps-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/reps-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/rev-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/rev-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/strings-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/strings-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/txn-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/txn-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/uuids-table.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/bdb/uuids-table.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/fs.c
>Log:
>Revert revision 5212.
>
Yup, Win32 builds again on trunk. Go ahead and release, as far as I'm
concerned.
Don't you just love how fast thing sometimes move around here? :-)
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Michael Price wrote:
>I see that the good old status page has 0.19 down for a release, uh,
>today.
>
>I see that the only remaining 0.19 marked issue is 1077.
>
>Are we in fact releasing today?
>
>If not, what are the remaining issues and who will contact me when they
>are finished?
>
>
We can't roll 0.19 until the FS refactoring has stabilized (or moved to
a branch, whichever comes first) so that I can update the Win32 build
files. Right now, the Win32 build is broken, therefore 0.19 is a no-no.
I think we have a branch for the FS refactoring now, so I expect someone
will revert the trunk commit soon. After that happens -- and I
successfully build on Win32 :-) -- I see no further problems.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by mark benedetto king <mb...@boredom.org>.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:03:51AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> So, for 0.19:
>
> 1. In trunk, put in the prop relaxation (using NE_XML_VALID). This
> is trivial. Ben is doing it right now.
>
> 2. Make the release branch, and on that branch, revert revision
> 5202, and apply MBK's server-side change to not send UUIDs.
>
This is fine-by-me.
I ran into problems with hacking in an HTTP-headers based UUID transmission;
sending them is easy, the question is picking them up. It looks like most
of the ra_dav functions that actually have access to neon request objects don't
also have access to the session baton. I've hardly done an exaustive
search, but I'm wondering if this was by design (it's not such a bad idea).
I don't want to change any function interfaces for temporary hacks if
I can help it. I could simply call neon directly, I guess...
This difficulty made me reconsider the HTTP-headers approach entirely, in
favor of Brane's suggestion to transmit the UUIDs as normal custom properties
for now.
I am unsure how best to proceed; recommendations are welcome.
--ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
Karl Fogel writes:
> Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> > Real life has gotten in the way so I won't be able to finish the release
> > until tonight. If that's too late then my feelings won't be hurt if
> > someone else fills in. If people don't mind waiting then I'll handle it
> > tonight.
>
> No problem. We'll just dock your release pay for each day late...
>
> <ducks>
OK, I'm back. I wasn't around any computers all weekend. Yes, I survived
the ordeal.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> Real life has gotten in the way so I won't be able to finish the release
> until tonight. If that's too late then my feelings won't be hurt if
> someone else fills in. If people don't mind waiting then I'll handle it
> tonight.
No problem. We'll just dock your release pay for each day late...
<ducks>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
Real life has gotten in the way so I won't be able to finish the release
until tonight. If that's too late then my feelings won't be hurt if
someone else fills in. If people don't mind waiting then I'll handle it
tonight.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> I went ahead and created the branch so you guys could get working. I'll
> update the CHANGES file later today and make sure it gets back-ported to
> trunk.
Okay, thanks. We're testing right now, will post results.
-K & B
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
Karl Fogel writes:
> Michael, how about you make the release branch once you see the xml
> change go in, then Ben and I will commit the branch-specific changes,
> and test the branch against itself and against a 0.18.1 client (while
> you're doing the other release administrative work). Mmm,
> parallelization :-). Sound okay?
I went ahead and created the branch so you guys could get working. I'll
update the CHANGES file later today and make sure it gets back-ported to
trunk.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Okay, plan for 0.19 release
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Things standing in the way of the release:
- The server sends UUIDs, but older clients can't handle them.
- Mike's mystery bug, stimulated by rev 5202 though probably not
caused by it.
- (optional) Make the client not error on unknown props, just
silently ignore them instead, to make future extension easier.
(No, the third item doesn't really "block" the release, it's just
something nice to get into this tarball, so we can avoid this problem
coming up again. When Neon gets NE_XML_IGNORE support, we can switch
the code to use that, it's a truly trivial change.)
So, for 0.19:
1. In trunk, put in the prop relaxation (using NE_XML_VALID). This
is trivial. Ben is doing it right now.
2. Make the release branch, and on that branch, revert revision
5202, and apply MBK's server-side change to not send UUIDs.
Michael, how about you make the release branch once you see the xml
change go in, then Ben and I will commit the branch-specific changes,
and test the branch against itself and against a 0.18.1 client (while
you're doing the other release administrative work). Mmm,
parallelization :-). Sound okay?
Reverting rev 5202 from the release branch is a nod to conservatism.
We don't know much about this bug, but we can guess that it's more
likely to show up with 5202 present than not. Reverting it does
remove one of the planned scalability bugfixes from the tarball, but
that's not a big deal, since the change is staying in trunk and will
automatically be in the next release (i.e., we don't need to reopen
the issue, so instead we can concentrate on the *real* bug).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by mark benedetto king <mb...@boredom.org>.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:43:12PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman just pointed something out...
>
> Mark, your patch below makes it so that 0.19 servers won't break older
> clients. However, the other thing we wanted to do is make clients
> less strict about validating incoming XML in general, right? That's
> what caused this problem in the first place. Although we've now
> solved it for the UUID case specifically, we also want clients to
> relax a bit, so that this problem doesn't happen for other new
> properties.
Yes, that's right.
>
> But if that's the plan, it's important for us to get that relaxation
> into 0.19. Otherwise, we'll have to wait yet one more release cycle
> if we come up with some new property.
You're absolutely right; the sooner we fix that the better.
>
> In other words, the patch below is only one half of the change we
> really need. Does that seem right to you?
>
Actually, it's only a third, because we also want to start sending
and processing the special HTTP reponse headers. I just figured
breaking unused functionality was better than delaying the release.
> If so, then Michael should probably wait until you have a chance to
> commit that other step as well (and commit the patch below along with
> it).
>
> Or, I could be totally misunderstanding the thread between you and
> gstein about the solution. Just ~thwack~ me if so... :-)
>
No, you're dead on; I just broke off a tiny piece of the plan to
unblock 0.19.
I should be able to get the rest in tonight, barring unforseen OS/X trouble.
Even in that case, there is a burgeoning night-time #svn OS/X cabal who
I'm sure will support me. :-)
--ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
Karl Fogel writes:
> Michael: sorry, I just realized it might seem strange that I never got
> back to you about the test results for MBK's quick-fix patch. I
> didn't complete testing yet, partly because it requires building a
> 0.18.x client as well to make sure it's really compatible -- but
> mainly because I want to see if we can get the validation relaxation
> into 0.19 too. There *will* be a releaseable tree Friday, just as
> soon as we get this figured out, sorry for the delay.
No need to apologize. Getting things right is far more important that
arbitrary schedules.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> Actually, that's not so necessary. We have to stop breaking older
> clients immediately -- that's the 0.19 priority. As to relaxing the
> strictness of the XML checker in the client, it might make sense to
> delay that a bit so that we can get Greg's proposed NE_XML_IGNORE change
> into Neon, too. That would make things much cleaner in the client.
Hmmm. How would that differ functionally from NE_XML_VALID?
Agree that first priority for 0.19 is to not break older clients, but
if we're going to relax our validation, it would be really, really
nice to get that out as early as possible too.
Michael: sorry, I just realized it might seem strange that I never got
back to you about the test results for MBK's quick-fix patch. I
didn't complete testing yet, partly because it requires building a
0.18.x client as well to make sure it's really compatible -- but
mainly because I want to see if we can get the validation relaxation
into 0.19 too. There *will* be a releaseable tree Friday, just as
soon as we get this figured out, sorry for the delay.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
>Ben Collins-Sussman just pointed something out...
>
>Mark, your patch below makes it so that 0.19 servers won't break older
>clients. However, the other thing we wanted to do is make clients
>less strict about validating incoming XML in general, right? That's
>what caused this problem in the first place. Although we've now
>solved it for the UUID case specifically, we also want clients to
>relax a bit, so that this problem doesn't happen for other new
>properties.
>
>But if that's the plan, it's important for us to get that relaxation
>into 0.19. Otherwise, we'll have to wait yet one more release cycle
>if we come up with some new property.
>
Actually, that's not so necessary. We have to stop breaking older
clients immediately -- that's the 0.19 priority. As to relaxing the
strictness of the XML checker in the client, it might make sense to
delay that a bit so that we can get Greg's proposed NE_XML_IGNORE change
into Neon, too. That would make things much cleaner in the client.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Ben Collins-Sussman just pointed something out...
Mark, your patch below makes it so that 0.19 servers won't break older
clients. However, the other thing we wanted to do is make clients
less strict about validating incoming XML in general, right? That's
what caused this problem in the first place. Although we've now
solved it for the UUID case specifically, we also want clients to
relax a bit, so that this problem doesn't happen for other new
properties.
But if that's the plan, it's important for us to get that relaxation
into 0.19. Otherwise, we'll have to wait yet one more release cycle
if we come up with some new property.
In other words, the patch below is only one half of the change we
really need. Does that seem right to you?
If so, then Michael should probably wait until you have a chance to
commit that other step as well (and commit the patch below along with
it).
Or, I could be totally misunderstanding the thread between you and
gstein about the solution. Just ~thwack~ me if so... :-)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
mark benedetto king writes:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:37:49PM -0600, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> > Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> >
> > > I see that the good old status page has 0.19 down for a release, uh,
> > > today.
> > >
> > > I see that the only remaining 0.19 marked issue is 1077.
>
> IMO, 0.19 should not be released while mod_dav_svn is still sending
> <S2:repository-uuid/> elements.
>
> Unfortunately, this breakage caught me in the middle of a shift to OS/X;
> I don't have my old svn development environment handy, and I don't have
> "make check" working for me yet.
>
> I expect to have make check fixed tonight; then I will develop, test and
> commit changes in line with the earlier list discussion on how to remedy
> this situation.
I was following the thread on this issue and thought we had settled on
the comments in:
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=32484
Sorry I didn't mention that in my email.
I agree that any upcoming release should fix this issue and would like
to delay release until it is fixed.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by mark benedetto king <mb...@boredom.org>.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:37:49PM -0600, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
>
> > I see that the good old status page has 0.19 down for a release, uh,
> > today.
> >
> > I see that the only remaining 0.19 marked issue is 1077.
>
IMO, 0.19 should not be released while mod_dav_svn is still sending
<S2:repository-uuid/> elements.
Unfortunately, this breakage caught me in the middle of a shift to OS/X;
I don't have my old svn development environment handy, and I don't have
"make check" working for me yet.
I expect to have make check fixed tonight; then I will develop, test and
commit changes in line with the earlier list discussion on how to remedy
this situation.
--ben
If we want to roll the release anyway, we might try (untested):
Quick patch to unblock 0.19. Breaks UUID support, in that UUIDs are
no longer being transmitted at all.
* subversion/mod_dav_svn/update.c
(close_helper): disable sending of UUID attribute in <S:prop> element
until over-strict libsvn_ra_dav clients are no longer supported.
Index: subversion/mod_dav_svn/update.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/mod_dav_svn/update.c (revision 5216)
+++ subversion/mod_dav_svn/update.c (working copy)
@@ -408,9 +408,11 @@
send_xml(baton->uc, "<D:creator-displayname>%s</D:creator-displayname>",
baton->last_author);
+#if 0
if (baton->uuid)
send_xml(baton->uc, "<S2:repository-uuid>%s</S2:repository-uuid>",
baton->uuid);
+#endif
send_xml(baton->uc, "</S:prop>\n");
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Upcoming 0.19 release.
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> I see that the good old status page has 0.19 down for a release, uh,
> today.
>
> I see that the only remaining 0.19 marked issue is 1077.
Ben and I are both banging on this issue now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org