I tested with groups with thousand of users without any problem. All the
users are specified in the same line.
On 18/03/2011 15:52, Rodrigo Montenegro wrote:
Hey, guys!
I looked everywhere for this info and I have not foud it.
I am quiting trying to control access with LDAP groups but I am
k
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Paul Graham wrote:
> I could find all the change versions of a file, then do an svn diff for each
> change, then parse the output and determine the number of changes, but that
> seems excessive :-)
>
> rcs has this lines+/- information directly in the database.
I could find all the change versions of a file, then do an svn diff for each
change, then parse the output and determine the number of changes, but that
seems excessive :-)
rcs has this lines+/- information directly in the database. Is svn organized
differently under the hood?
Paul
- Orig
On Mar 18, 2011, at 08:39, Paul Graham wrote:
> The cvs log command includes information about the size of each change:
> Is there any way to get an output similar to cvs log?
Not with the standard client, no. Perhaps such a thing could be written with a
custom script.
Andy,
Thanks for the reply, but svn log --verbose does not do what I asked about.
What I'm interested in is something like cvs log which shows the number
of lines affected by the change, e.g., "lines: +10 -5".
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Levy"
To: "Paul Graham"
Cc: users@s
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:39, Paul Graham wrote:
> SVN experts:
>
> The cvs log command includes information about the size of each change:
>
> revision 1.14
> date: 2010-03-13 18:26:55 -0500; author: pgraham; state: Exp; lines: +331
> -288;
> Rewrote function.
>
SVN experts:
The cvs log command includes information about the size of each change:
revision 1.14
date: 2010-03-13 18:26:55 -0500; author: pgraham; state: Exp; lines: +331
-288;
Rewrote function.
revision 1.13
date: 2010-03-04 22:17:56 -0500; author: pgraham; s
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40:34AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Rechecking my test environment, 1.6.16 builds well enough on RHEL
>> 5/CentOS 5 with just the version change. RHEL 6 is a *disaster*,
>> partly due swig integration. (RH
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:52:51AM -0300, Rodrigo Montenegro wrote:
> Hey, guys!
>
> I looked everywhere for this info and I have not foud it.
>
> I am quiting trying to control access with LDAP groups but I am keeping the
> authentication.
>
> So, I decided to use the AuthzSVNAccessFile directi
Hey, guys!
I looked everywhere for this info and I have not foud it.
I am quiting trying to control access with LDAP groups but I am keeping the
authentication.
So, I decided to use the AuthzSVNAccessFile directive to make groups and
control the access to some repos, projects and paths. I tested
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40:34AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Rechecking my test environment, 1.6.16 builds well enough on RHEL
> 5/CentOS 5 with just the version change. RHEL 6 is a *disaster*,
> partly due swig integration. (RHEL 6 finally has a recent enough swig
> and sqlite not to need
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:13:00AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> >> The 1.6.16 has some minor build-s
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:13:00AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >> The 1.6.16 has some minor build-structure changes that have broken the
> >> SRPM's. I'm wonderin
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> The 1.6.16 has some minor build-structure changes that have broken the
>> SRPM's. I'm wondering if it's even worth pursuing, for environments
>> that don't rely on HTTP/
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> The 1.6.16 has some minor build-structure changes that have broken the
> SRPM's. I'm wondering if it's even worth pursuing, for environments
> that don't rely on HTTP/HTTPS authentication, especially because I'm
> such a long-stan
Yesterday i posted this question at the TortoiseSVN user list:
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2712140
Due to the answer of Dale
(http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2712147)
i'm going to ask the same question here
> -Original Message-
> From: bruce [mailto:badoug...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 March 2011 01:36
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: subversion authz file question
>
> hi.
>
>
> my question has to do with the structure of the authz access file.
>
> I'm trying to understand the set
Hi.
Seems like I have hit with the issue
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3445 Well, it is
old report but still open?
When committing to https://proxyserver/svn/ the client shows message
svn: Commit failed (details follow):
svn: At least one property change failed; repository
18 matches
Mail list logo
