You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by kf...@collab.net on 2003/11/11 22:43:37 UTC
0.33 == Beta
bdenny@tigris.org writes re Issue 1589:
> Fixed in r7704.
Yessss. Thanks, Brian!
We're getting down the wire on 0.33. Issue #1429 will be closed soon;
#1578 is just waiting on a merge from cmpilato; #1595 has a concrete
plan and is not a lot of coding; Sander's working hard on #1245
(sitting right here next to me :-) ). We still have to figure out
exactly *what* if anything we want to do for #1556, but once we've
decided, we'll know how to do it now, thanks to Philip.
In case anyone missed it, the plan is that 0.33 == Beta. So after
Thursday, we'll finally be out of Alpha.
Note that we already started a 0.34 milestone. Which is expected --
we'll want interim milestones during Beta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>"I ran 'make check'" doesn't pass muster :-)
>
>
> You bet it doesn't. If it did, we would have seen this bug *last*
> time I changed the schema. This branch has been line-by-line code
> reviewed by one of the other folks for whom the Voodoo wasn't so
> Mystic. Custom scripts written for testing real repositories. But
> that doesn't mean we haven't missed something. I'm fine with delaying
> the merge, if for no other reason than that it's one less thing to
> worry about in this incredibly busy week.
Any chance of getting those scripts turned into unit tests of some sort?
> [1] People for the Understanding of Filesystem Module Innards ("puff-me")
Nice ;-)
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 != Beta
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Thursday 13 November 2003 18.12, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> In the meantime, for 0.33, would you mind if Ben and I made the
> release? (This would just help us with some CollabNet internal
> scheduling, no reflection on your abilities as release manager.)
I don't mind at all, I know where I have my nuts (and they are not a
shiny car, title or anything else they should not be.. :-)
Jostein
--
Jostein Chr. Andersen <jo...@josander.net>
http://www.josander.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 != Beta
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
"Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> writes:
> Will the remaining issues be finished today? I need to know I I should
> stay awake or go to bed as nornal (CET).
Jostein, I think you can go to bed as normal.
The usual process is that one of the developers will post to dev@,
giving a trunk revision that should be copied for the release branch.
Then you can branch & start the release process according at your
leisure (i.e., not necessarily right away, just within a day or two).
This system of having two effective dates for each release -- the
code-complete date, and the actual release date -- will shortly become
more explicit. At Sander Striker's suggestion, we are going to start
planning both dates deliberately, and putting a week or two between
them, so there's a bit of time to find bugs in the trunk after the
blessed revision has been chosen. We'll start doing that with 0.34.
In the meantime, for 0.33, would you mind if Ben and I made the
release? (This would just help us with some CollabNet internal
scheduling, no reflection on your abilities as release manager.)
Thanks,
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 != Beta
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Thursday 13 November 2003 16.55, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> After emails phone conversation, we (Greg Stein, Ben, Mike, me, a few
> others) agreed on this plan:
Will the remaining issues be finished today? I need to know I I should
stay awake or go to bed as nornal (CET).
Jostein
--
Jostein Chr. Andersen <jo...@josander.net>
http://www.josander.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
0.33 != Beta
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
After emails phone conversation, we (Greg Stein, Ben, Mike, me, a few
others) agreed on this plan:
- Include the #1429 checkout improvements into 0.33 (because it's a
big improvement, not likely to lead to repository corruption, and
at this point just needs wide exposure to find any compatibility
problems)
- Merge the #1578 fs history algorithm fixes to trunk immediately
after 0.33 (because those are subtle and it would be good to have
a gentler review & ramp-up time for them; and also we didn't want
to combine an fs schema change with a working copy format upgrade
*and* a client/server protocol upgrade)
- Merge the #1595 transaction removal improvements to trunk right
after 0.33, because they are non-trivial, and Mike only has 24
hours in a day and doesn't want to rush them into a release :-).
Also, same concerns about giving them some "soak time" apply. In
general, it's nice to have a change be in HEAD for a while before
it appears in a blessed release, though we're making an exception
for #1429 above.
- 0.33 will still be Alpha. Either 0.34 or 0.35 will be Beta;
we'll make that call when we have a better impression of their
stability.
So. Don't want to be some private Star Chamber here, so if anyone
thinks this is a wildly bad plan, please speak up :-). But we think
it's a good compromise between stability & distributing improvements.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:43:44AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 09:51, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> writes:
> > > But wasn't the last schema bug discovered by a non-developer? I mean,
> > > the history bug came out a normal user's repository, right?
> > >
> > > In my mind, that's an argument for distributing the new fs-schema change
> > > in 0.33, so that the schema change gets as much testing as possible
> > > before a 0.34 "beta" release.
> >
> > That's exactly what I was thinking too. If we drop one of these
> > merges from 0.33, better to delay #1429 than #1578.
>
> I really don't see why we should drop any merges. Who said 0.33 has to
> be "perfectly" stable?
The release, in general, doesn't have to be perfectly stable. But the
*repository* *does*.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 09:51, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> writes:
> > But wasn't the last schema bug discovered by a non-developer? I mean,
> > the history bug came out a normal user's repository, right?
> >
> > In my mind, that's an argument for distributing the new fs-schema change
> > in 0.33, so that the schema change gets as much testing as possible
> > before a 0.34 "beta" release.
>
> That's exactly what I was thinking too. If we drop one of these
> merges from 0.33, better to delay #1429 than #1578.
I really don't see why we should drop any merges. Who said 0.33 has to
be "perfectly" stable? It's 0.34 that needs to be stable, not 0.33.
And the best way to make 0.34 stable is to expose all the "large" 0.33
changes to as many people as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> writes:
> But wasn't the last schema bug discovered by a non-developer? I mean,
> the history bug came out a normal user's repository, right?
>
> In my mind, that's an argument for distributing the new fs-schema change
> in 0.33, so that the schema change gets as much testing as possible
> before a 0.34 "beta" release.
That's exactly what I was thinking too. If we drop one of these
merges from 0.33, better to delay #1429 than #1578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:01:31AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 08:59, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> > > "I ran 'make check'" doesn't pass muster :-)
> >
> > You bet it doesn't. If it did, we would have seen this bug *last*
> > time I changed the schema.
>
> But wasn't the last schema bug discovered by a non-developer? I mean,
> the history bug came out a normal user's repository, right?
>
> In my mind, that's an argument for distributing the new fs-schema change
> in 0.33, so that the schema change gets as much testing as possible
> before a 0.34 "beta" release.
Yes, but there are two classes of bugs to guard against:
1) obvious bugs that developers will shake out in their use
2) subtle bugs that take a while before a user runs into them
You don't want to foist class (1) bugs off on 0.33 users. Let the code sit
in the trunk for a bit so that the dev community finds them first. Almost
by definition the class (2) bugs cannot be found by us, so yah... the
release goes out the door to the larger community to find those.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 08:59, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > "I ran 'make check'" doesn't pass muster :-)
>
> You bet it doesn't. If it did, we would have seen this bug *last*
> time I changed the schema.
But wasn't the last schema bug discovered by a non-developer? I mean,
the history bug came out a normal user's repository, right?
In my mind, that's an argument for distributing the new fs-schema change
in 0.33, so that the schema change gets as much testing as possible
before a 0.34 "beta" release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> > The #1578 have been extensively scrutinized and run through a ringer
> > of automated tests by Mike and others. I'm not saying there's zero
> > risk, but I don't think it's as high as might be expected.
>
> How many people actually and truly understand the Mystic Voodoo that Mike
> just went through? Name two :-)
/me flashes his PUFMI[1] badge.
I *could* name two (besides myself). But then I'd have to kill you.
> "I ran 'make check'" doesn't pass muster :-)
You bet it doesn't. If it did, we would have seen this bug *last*
time I changed the schema. This branch has been line-by-line code
reviewed by one of the other folks for whom the Voodoo wasn't so
Mystic. Custom scripts written for testing real repositories. But
that doesn't mean we haven't missed something. I'm fine with delaying
the merge, if for no other reason than that it's one less thing to
worry about in this incredibly busy week.
--C-Mike
[1] People for the Understanding of Filesystem Module Innards ("puff-me")
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:36:02PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>...
> For #1429, part of merging these changes into trunk is testing old
> client against new server, new client against old server, and 'make
> check' with the new code of course. If it passes all that, then the
> wider community is the next logical step
Agreed. The question is whether the "wider community" is the dev community
or the user community.
It may be that #1429 is okay because the failure mode is relatively easy
to recover from. (e.g. some problem in doing a checkout/update)
#1578 has a bit more problematic failure mode. Obviously, it is working
for the typical case (based on Mike's testing). But that edge condition.
> (we do have patch-level
> releases in case something is still wrong, after all).
Good point. Problems related to #1429 will probably be easy to spot and to
fix. And they'd probably turn up sooner rather than later. I wouldn't be
so quick to say the same about #1578.
> And if it
> doesn't pass all that, then of course it won't go into 0.33 or
> anything else until it's fixed :-).
Oh, sure. I certainly didn't doubt that the branches were passing the
regression test, plus other kinds of hand testing.
> The #1578 have been extensively scrutinized and run through a ringer
> of automated tests by Mike and others. I'm not saying there's zero
> risk, but I don't think it's as high as might be expected.
How many people actually and truly understand the Mystic Voodoo that Mike
just went through? Name two :-)
"I ran 'make check'" doesn't pass muster :-)
> Still, there's certainly something worrying about putting both a
> client/server protocol change *and* an fs schema change into one
> release... But maybe we should merge one now and wait on the other.
Yup. I'd be -0 on merging #1429 (still prefer to wait post-0.33). And I'd
be -0.9 for merging #1578 for 0.33.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> Euh. It is end of day Tuesday. There are two branches corresponding to
> issues 1429 and 1578. Each of these are large, structural changes to the
> operation of Subversion, and neither has been merged.
>
> I *really* don't think it is a good idea to merge them a day or two before
> release. I believe they need some "soak time" before hitting the public at
> large. And especially bad to call that release "beta" after such a short
> period of "in-trunk-ness".
>
> IMO, keep 0.33 as an alpha. Do the branch merges *just after* 0.33 is
> released. If you can release 0.33 today/tomorrow [because 0.33 won't be
> held for these merges], then just fine. Then call 0.34 the beta, after
> there has been adequate soak time.
Heh, yes, You're so quite right about not calling it "beta" before
soak time. I'm being overeager :-), thanks for the head check.
About delaying both merges, I'm not so sure... ?
For #1429, part of merging these changes into trunk is testing old
client against new server, new client against old server, and 'make
check' with the new code of course. If it passes all that, then the
wider community is the next logical step (we do have patch-level
releases in case something is still wrong, after all). And if it
doesn't pass all that, then of course it won't go into 0.33 or
anything else until it's fixed :-).
The #1578 have been extensively scrutinized and run through a ringer
of automated tests by Mike and others. I'm not saying there's zero
risk, but I don't think it's as high as might be expected.
Still, there's certainly something worrying about putting both a
client/server protocol change *and* an fs schema change into one
release... But maybe we should merge one now and wait on the other.
Well, sleeping on it,
zzzzz,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:43:37PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>...
> We're getting down the wire on 0.33. Issue #1429 will be closed soon;
> #1578 is just waiting on a merge from cmpilato; #1595 has a concrete
> plan and is not a lot of coding; Sander's working hard on #1245
> (sitting right here next to me :-) ). We still have to figure out
> exactly *what* if anything we want to do for #1556, but once we've
> decided, we'll know how to do it now, thanks to Philip.
>
> In case anyone missed it, the plan is that 0.33 == Beta. So after
> Thursday, we'll finally be out of Alpha.
Euh. It is end of day Tuesday. There are two branches corresponding to
issues 1429 and 1578. Each of these are large, structural changes to the
operation of Subversion, and neither has been merged.
I *really* don't think it is a good idea to merge them a day or two before
release. I believe they need some "soak time" before hitting the public at
large. And especially bad to call that release "beta" after such a short
period of "in-trunk-ness".
IMO, keep 0.33 as an alpha. Do the branch merges *just after* 0.33 is
released. If you can release 0.33 today/tomorrow [because 0.33 won't be
held for these merges], then just fine. Then call 0.34 the beta, after
there has been adequate soak time.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Stop using "svn:this_dir" in the entres file [was Re:
0.33 == Beta]
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Branko Čibej wrote:
>Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>
>>C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What about the infamous svn:this-dir in the entries file? IMHO we should
>>>>get rid of ir before beta; it was a debugging aid, and we don't need it
>>>>any more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>+1. Karl fusses about this every time he sees it.
>>>
>>>
>>O.K., I'm on it. :-)
>>
>>
>How about this, then? It looks like a simple "svn up" will automagically
>upgrade all the entries files.If I hear no objections (and the tests
>pass) I'll commit this tomorrow.
>
>
The ra:_local tests pass, and I don't believe ra_svn and ra_dav would be
any more relevant.in this case.
--
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: [PATCH] Stop using "svn:this_dir" in the entres file [was Re: 0.33 == Beta]
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> How about this, then?
[...]
> + /* XXX Replace the obsolete "svn:this_dir".
> + XXX This code should go away by 1.0 */
> + {
> + if (name && 0 == strcmp(name, "svn:this_dir"))
^^^
Well, there's that pesky adherence to coding styles thing, but...
Could you pretty please make that line:
if (name && (strcmp (name, "svn:this_dir") == 0))
*Smooch*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
[PATCH] Stop using "svn:this_dir" in the entres file [was Re: 0.33
== Beta]
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Branko Čibej wrote:
>C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>>
>>>What about the infamous svn:this-dir in the entries file? IMHO we should
>>>get rid of ir before beta; it was a debugging aid, and we don't need it
>>>any more.
>>>
>>+1. Karl fusses about this every time he sees it.
>>
>O.K., I'm on it. :-)
>
>
How about this, then? It looks like a simple "svn up" will automagically
upgrade all the entries files.If I hear no objections (and the tests
pass) I'll commit this tomorrow.
[[[
Use "" instead of "svn:this_dir" in the entries file.
* subversion/include/svn_wc.h (SVN_WC_ENTRIES_THIS_DIR): Define to "".
* subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c (svn_wc__atts_to_entry): It the
entry name is "svn:this_dir", change it to SVN_WC_ENTRIES_THIS_DIR.
]]]
Index: subversion/include/svn_wc.h
===================================================================
--- subversion/include/svn_wc.h (revision 7710)
+++ subversion/include/svn_wc.h (working copy)
@@ -785,7 +785,7 @@
/** How an entries file's owner dir is named in the entries file. */
-#define SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR "svn:this_dir"
+#define SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR ""
/** Set @a *entry to an entry for @a path, allocated in the access baton
Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c (revision 7710)
+++ subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c (working copy)
@@ -177,6 +177,12 @@
/* Find the name and set up the entry under that name. */
name = apr_hash_get (atts, SVN_WC__ENTRY_ATTR_NAME, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);
+ /* XXX Replace the obsolete "svn:this_dir".
+ XXX This code should go away by 1.0 */
+ {
+ if (name && 0 == strcmp(name, "svn:this_dir"))
+ name = SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR;
+ }
entry->name = name ? name : SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR;
/* Attempt to set revision (resolve_to_defaults may do it later, too) */
--
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: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>
>>What about the infamous svn:this-dir in the entries file? IMHO we should
>>get rid of ir before beta; it was a debugging aid, and we don't need it
>>any more.
>>
>>
>
>+1. Karl fusses about this every time he sees it.
>
>
O.K., I'm on it. :-)
--
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: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> What about the infamous svn:this-dir in the entries file? IMHO we should
> get rid of ir before beta; it was a debugging aid, and we don't need it
> any more.
+1. Karl fusses about this every time he sees it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
What about the infamous svn:this-dir in the entries file? IMHO we should
get rid of ir before beta; it was a debugging aid, and we don't need it
any more.
--
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: ERROR Installing SVN at Redhat
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, November 12, 2003 08:16:24 +0700 Frans Thamura
<ja...@intercitra.com> wrote:
> this is my error, can you help me?
This really belongs on users@svn not dev@svn.
> [root@guerilla1 modules]# service httpd2 restart
> Syntax error on line 233 of /usr/local/apache2/conf/httpd.conf:
> Cannot load /usr/local/apache2/modules/mod_dav_svn.so into server:
> /usr/lib/libsvn_subr-1.so.0: undefined symbol: apr_filepath_encoding
> [root@guerilla1 modules]#
You are probably using RH's httpd which isn't supported. It's ridiculously
old (2.0.40). You *need* 2.0.48 to get some new functions added into APR
and httpd. Please read INSTALL. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
ERROR Installing SVN at Redhat
Posted by Frans Thamura <ja...@intercitra.com>.
sorry,
this is my error, can you help me?
this is my setting at httpd.conf
LoadModule dav_svn_module modules/mod_dav_svn.so
and this is the error when restart the apache httpd2 at RH
[root@guerilla1 modules]# ls -la
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3299 Apr 22 2003 mod_dav_svn.la
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 92789 Apr 22 2003 mod_dav_svn.so
[root@guerilla1 modules]# service httpd2 restart
Syntax error on line 233 of /usr/local/apache2/conf/httpd.conf:
Cannot load /usr/local/apache2/modules/mod_dav_svn.so into server: /usr/lib/libsvn_subr-1.so.0: undefined symbol: apr_filepath_encoding
[root@guerilla1 modules]#
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by Files <fi...@poetryunlimited.com>.
Is this a must? Mandrake's 2.0.48 apr packages are still cooker'd. :(
I'll see if I can get them to install but I'm concerned they may not be
prime-time ready yet. Which means I haven't been able to compile past 0.32.1
using the Mandrake build set yet.
Or does this mean we still have a few beta cycles to go?
--
Shamim Islam
BA BS
John Peacock said:
> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>> In case anyone missed it, the plan is that 0.33 == Beta. So after
>> Thursday, we'll finally be out of Alpha.
>>
>
> Karl -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com> writes:
> You indicated back in early October that you'd like to see issue #1451
> in 1.0. Any chance you could give my last suggested patch the once
> over? I'd be happy to do anything you want to get it ready to go...
I'm not competent to review it; maybe someone else is?...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 0.33 == Beta
Posted by John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com>.
kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, the plan is that 0.33 == Beta. So after
> Thursday, we'll finally be out of Alpha.
>
Karl -
You indicated back in early October that you'd like to see issue #1451 in 1.0.
Any chance you could give my last suggested patch the once over? I'd be happy
to do anything you want to get it ready to go...
TIA
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5747
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Friday 14 November 2003 10.46, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
> > Will you still provide the Python bindings, and if so: -Will it be a
> > new file structure here to?
>
> Yes, I'll build the Python bindings. I'll probably put them into
> subdir, and that could be added to the package structure, e.g.,
>
> svn-win32-0.33.0/
> python-2.3/
> libsvn/
> *.py
> *.dll
> svn/
> *.py
Any chance of giving me a note when you have made your decition?
> > I have to decide what to include in the installer, maybe everything
> > should be included(?).
>
> You have two packages, binaries and development. Whether you put both
> in the same installer is your decision. I guess it would be O.K. if
> the installer only contains the binary package. I do suggest you
> include the .pdb files from bin/, httpd/ and iconv/, because they'll
> make error reporting much easier.
I will decide it when I know everything I need to know about final sizes
of binaries and paths and so on. Your suggestions seems reasonable to
me.
Jostein
--
Jostein Chr. Andersen <jo...@josander.net>
http://www.josander.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by br...@xbc.nu.
Quoting "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>:
> On Thursday 13 November 2003 23.42, Branko Äibej wrote:
> > Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in
> > 0.33.0, what with including headers and libraries, I've made a
> > PRERELEASE package (from trunk at r7728) available at
> >
> > http://www.xbc.nu/svn/
> >
> > Please use them _only_ for the new structure, e.g., for the Windows
> > installer. I haven't tested anything.
>
> I really like the new structure! :-)
>
> Will you still provide the Python bindings, and if so: -Will it be a new
> file structure here to?
Yes, I'll build the Python bindings. I'll probably put them into subdir, and
that could be added to the package structure, e.g.,
svn-win32-0.33.0/
python-2.3/
libsvn/
*.py
*.dll
svn/
*.py
> I have to decide what to include in the installer, maybe everything
> should be included(?).
You have two packages, binaries and development. Whether you put both in the
same installer is your decision. I guess it would be O.K. if the installer only
contains the binary package. I do suggest you include the .pdb files from bin/,
httpd/ and iconv/, because they'll make error reporting much easier.
> My guess is that the size of the installer will
> be around 4.5-5.5 MB with everything included (a self extracting 7-zip
> file with the contents you just made is 4.84 MB big).
That sounds like a lot; however, most of that is .pdb files, so if you include
those in the binary installation, the headers and libraries wouldn't make a
noticeable difference...
Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Thursday 13 November 2003 23.42, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in
> 0.33.0, what with including headers and libraries, I've made a
> PRERELEASE package (from trunk at r7728) available at
>
> http://www.xbc.nu/svn/
>
> Please use them _only_ for the new structure, e.g., for the Windows
> installer. I haven't tested anything.
I really like the new structure! :-)
Will you still provide the Python bindings, and if so: -Will it be a new
file structure here to?
I have to decide what to include in the installer, maybe everything
should be included(?). My guess is that the size of the installer will
be around 4.5-5.5 MB with everything included (a self extracting 7-zip
file with the contents you just made is 4.84 MB big).
Jostein
--
Jostein Chr. Andersen <jo...@josander.net>
http://www.josander.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> >>Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in 0.33.0,
> > ^^^^^^^
> >
> >Heh. That must have been the most ... Deep American South(?) typo in
> >the Subversion dev archives. :-)
> >
> >
> A search of the archive found 8 posts with this typo. Four of them are
> mine, and two others are replies that quote my post, so I win 4:2 (or
> 6:2 in Florida) :-p
Wow! That's awesome, in a "your brain is wired funny" kinda way. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>
>>Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in 0.33.0,
>>
>>
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Heh. That must have been the most ... Deep American South(?) typo in
>the Subversion dev archives. :-)
>
>
A search of the archive found 8 posts with this typo. Four of them are
mine, and two others are replies that quote my post, so I win 4:2 (or
6:2 in Florida) :-p
--
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: PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in 0.33.0,
^^^^^^^
Heh. That must have been the most ... Deep American South(?) typo in
the Subversion dev archives. :-)
/me heads over yonder to see if Becky Sue has the vittles and fixins
ready to et.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
PRERELEASE 0.33.0 Windows binaries
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Becasue the structure of the Win32 binary package will change in 0.33.0,
what with including headers and libraries, I've made a PRERELEASE
package (from trunk at r7728) available at
http://www.xbc.nu/svn/
Please use them _only_ for the new structure, e.g., for the Windows
installer. I haven't tested anything.
--
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