On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM, mels630 wrote:
> I maintain a personal SVN server on a separate partition of my hard drive
> (/media/SVN) (with both remote and local access). Recently, I blew up my
> main partition while trying to upgrade Ubuntu and am just getting everything
> working again.
>
>
I maintain a personal SVN server on a separate partition of my hard
drive (/media/SVN) (with both remote and local access). Recently, I blew
up my main partition while trying to upgrade Ubuntu and am just getting
everything working again.
My data directories on my home partition were not affec
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:21:12PM +0100, michael.ru...@t-systems.com wrote:
> >Does this match the situation you were facing?
> This seems to be exactly the issue we are facing.
Great! So it should "just work" if the tool is driven in the right way.
> The developers are
> using TortoiseSVN and n
> > -Messaggio originale-
> > Da: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.co...@siemens.com]
> > Inviato: lunedì 31 ottobre 2011 15.43
> > A: 'users@subversion.apache.org'
> > Cc: Stefano Mora
> > Oggetto: RE: RE: Browsing folders and SVN - Trovata parola
> o parole list error
> > nel corpo del testo
> >
Hi Stefan,
thanks for the quick reply.
>Please never, ever, modify mergeinfo manually.
...
>Then load this dump file into a new repository and use that repository
>instead of the old one.
We have created a backup (Hotcopy) of the repository before we did the property
changes so we might get bac
I did an additional benchmark doing "svn rm dir/*" on a local directory instead
of an nfs directory. It runs in 10.4s. Is going from 10.4s to 6m15s
acceptable when using a working copy on nfs vs local? I am fine with a certain
amount of slowdown when using nfs. But, I don't see this kind of
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:09:21AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote:
> I am starting to see some very bad performance with "svn rm" compared to the
> 1.6.x line of subversion. I have a directory that is full of files. If I go
> into the directory and run "svn rm *", it is significantly
Ok, i've found the problem.
With my new server, i want to support IPv6, so i've compiled apache
2.2.x with IPv6.
Server have no IPv6 address BUT kernel and all programs was compiled and
support it.
First problem came with Redmine, when all my POST form make error 500.
I've rebuild apache wit
I am starting to see some very bad performance with "svn rm" compared to the
1.6.x line of subversion. I have a directory that is full of files. If I go
into the directory and run "svn rm *", it is significantly slower than running
svn rm on the whole directory. While the difference in time t
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.co...@siemens.com]
> Inviato: lunedì 31 ottobre 2011 15.43
> A: 'users@subversion.apache.org'
> Cc: Stefano Mora
> Oggetto: RE: RE: Browsing folders and SVN - Trovata parola o parole list error
> nel corpo del testo
>
> > > > -Orig
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Stefano Mora [mailto:sm...@eos.pr.it]
> > > Sent: 31 October 2011 10:26
> > > To: 'users@subversion.apache.org'
> > > Subject: Browsing folders and SVN
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > we'd like to build the following FS+SVN structure:
> > >
> > > - Folder1 (ph
> Da: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.co...@siemens.com]
> Inviato: lunedì 31 ottobre 2011 13.47
> A: Stefano Mora; 'users@subversion.apache.org'
> Oggetto: [SPAM] - RE: Browsing folders and SVN - Trovata parola o parole list
> error nel corpo del testo
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stefano
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 02:38:54PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> $ svn merge ^/master
> --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r4 into '.':
>U .
> --- Merging r5 through r6 into '.':
> Ualpha
I forgot to edit this output, sorry.
To match up with other co
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:59:32AM +0100, michael.ru...@t-systems.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have migrated a SVN repository that heavily relies on the relatively new
> merge tracking feature. By doing that we have been struggeling with two major
> issues:
>
> 1. Svn move does not fix svn:mergeinfo
Guten Tag Stefano Mora,
am Montag, 31. Oktober 2011 um 11:26 schrieben Sie:
> If I type 'svn list http://server:8080/folder1/folder2/' I recevice
> the error 'Redirect cycle detected' for URL ...
This won't work because svn list can only list Subversion content,
which in this case isn't any. I th
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Mora [mailto:sm...@eos.pr.it]
> Sent: 31 October 2011 10:26
> To: 'users@subversion.apache.org'
> Subject: Browsing folders and SVN
>
> Hi all,
> we'd like to build the following FS+SVN structure:
>
> - Folder1 (physical folder)
> -- Folder2 (physical
Hi Everyone!,
I was looking through the internet and didn't find any useful
information. I'm asking you:) And would appreciate any help.
We have 2 SVN servers, using apache dav_svn. (Master located in the US
and slave located in EU)
I setup replication using svnsync. And it's working fine.
Slave
Hi all,
we'd like to build the following FS+SVN structure:
- Folder1 (physical folder)
-- Folder2 (physical folder = list of repos)
--- Folder3 (physical folder = repo)
Folder4 (svn folders/files)
Is it possible?
So far, I defined them but I have errors.
If I type 'svn list http://server:808
Hi,
we have migrated a SVN repository that heavily relies on the relatively new
merge tracking feature. By doing that we have been struggeling with two major
issues:
1. Svn move does not fix svn:mergeinfo property values
2. Svn merge operation does not realize that the code has been moved to a
hello! http://sadatmusic.com/ibiza.html?lfortuneid=13jw7
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:56:11 +0200
> From: s...@elego.de
> To: wabekoelm...@hotmail.com
> CC: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Error when updating
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:20:36AM +, Wabe W wrote:
> > From: Philip Martin
> > >Can you reproduce the problem with a local tes
> This is reproducible? You checkout some revision R1 and update to R2
> and see the error?
>
> Can you describe the changes between R1 and R2?
I just did a checkout of the latest revision of the repository. So, if I click
update the chances are large that there is no newer revision.
But wheth
22 matches
Mail list logo
