Upgrading Subversion 1.6.x (apache module 2.2) to Subversion 1.8.x (apache module 2.4) is buggy

2017-07-05 Thread Rajam, Lakshmi
Hi,


Install Win32Svn (32-bit client, server and bindings, MSI and ZIPs; maintained 
by David Darj) Subversion 1.6.x version, Select Apache 2.2 module during 
installation of subversion.

now Upgrade the Subversion 1.8.x with Apache 2.4 module during installation of 
subversion.

After the installation of subversion completes, if we verify the bin folder, 
(executables are missing) particularly svnadmin.exe is missing.
The subversion becomes unusable.

What could be fix for this issue?

Regards,
Lakshmi.S



Re: "Unable to parse reversed revision range" when merging from trunk to branch

2017-07-05 Thread Branko Čibej
On 04.07.2017 16:33, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jens Christian Restemeier wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2017 15:10 +0100:
>> I ran "make tests", which fails for undefined references to gmock...
> The build.conf stanzas for the cxxhl bindings declare them as «install =
> tests», which causes a «make tests» target to be created for compiling
> and running the cxxhl bindings tests.
>
> I'm not sure whether that was intentional.

It was not.

The right way to run our tests is 'make check'.

-- Brane



Re: "Unable to parse reversed revision range" when merging from trunk to branch

2017-07-05 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:31 +0200:
> On 04.07.2017 16:33, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Jens Christian Restemeier wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2017 15:10 +0100:
> >> I ran "make tests", which fails for undefined references to gmock...
> > The build.conf stanzas for the cxxhl bindings declare them as «install =
> > tests», which causes a «make tests» target to be created for compiling
> > and running the cxxhl bindings tests.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether that was intentional.
> 
> It was not.

Fixed in r1800849.


Re: Facing issues in Enable editing log messages.

2017-07-05 Thread Branko Čibej
On 05.07.2017 14:57, Ramamurthy, Manochitra wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>  
>
> Can you please help me to resolve this issue ?
>

Which part of my answer from a week ago did you not understand?

-- Brane