Ryan Schmidt ryandesign.com> writes:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 15:19, Tsunam wrote:
>
> > From the mirror users can create new files to be added, but the delete/copy
> > aspects fail when run through the proxy.
>
> How do they fail? What error messages occur?
>
>
>From the client perspectiv
On Apr 2, 2012, at 15:19, Tsunam wrote:
> From the mirror users can create new files to be added, but the delete/copy
> aspects fail when run through the proxy.
How do they fail? What error messages occur?
Hi all,
At a bit of a loss and can't entirely figure out the cause of the issue.
>From the mirror users can create new files to be added, but the delete/copy
aspects fail when run through the proxy. If the users relocate to the
master and run the same command it works without issue.
So there's so
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM, J. Bakshi wrote:
> I have already tried usvn but I am in search of an web interface which can
> provide much control than just create/delete. I need such an web interface
> which can allow the user to add folder non-recursively/recursively as well
> as allow to add
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, J. Bakshi wrote:
> I have already tried usvn but I am in search of an web interface which can
> provide much control than just create/delete. I need such an web interface
> which can allow the user to add folder non-recursively/recursively as well
> as allow to add
Haven't read the whole thread, but the problem here has to do with r81.
r80 moved fine and I expect `svnlook youngest dest` = 80.
If the source repos has authz set up or has undergone history surgeries
that's likely related.
You could try running:
% svnserve --log-file=foo.log -dr.
% svnsync sync
Dear list,
I have already tried usvn but I am in search of an web interface which can
provide much control than just create/delete. I need such an web interface
which can allow the user to add folder non-recursively/recursively as well
as allow to add selected files/folders in a non-recursive dire
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
> Why is it showing files in trunk when you're log command is for
> branches/working ? Or have you just pasted the wrong command?
Nope, that's the command. I mean, it *is* the log, so... shouldn't it?
The commands for trunk and
On 02/04/12 13:16, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 11:51, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 11:10, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
that still doesn
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 11:51, Gary wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Giulio Troccoli
> On 02/04/12 11:10, Gary wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Giulio Troccoli
>>> On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
> that still doesn't explain to m
On 02/04/12 11:51, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 11:10, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
that still doesn't explain to me why svnsync barfs on those (not)
missing revisions. Looking at t
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 11:10, Gary wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Giulio Troccoli
>> On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
that still doesn't explain to me why svnsync barfs on those (not)
missing revisions. Looking at the command line histo
On 02/04/12 11:10, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
This is perhaps better:
$ svn log svn://devel.//
[snip]
r84 | gpspbu | 2011-06-24 12:52:16 +0200 (Fri, 24 Ju
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Troccoli
> On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
>> This is perhaps better:
>>
>> $ svn log svn://devel.//
>> [snip]
>>
>> r84 | gpspbu | 2011-06-24 12:52:16 +0200 (Fri, 24 Jun 2011) | 1 lin
Am 02.04.2012 11:39, schrieb Gary:
> See my other email, I got the svn log command wrong, and the branch
> *is* still available, just can't be modified any more. The question
> is, why svnsync gets its knickers into a twist about that. The
> revisions *are* available (and can be checked out, I chec
From: Ulrich Eckhardt
>> I imagine they are/were in a branch, which AFAIK is no longer
>> available. Is there any way to get around this? Assuming that's
>> the problem, of course.
>
> Do you know more about this branch and how it was removed? Just "svn
> delete"ing a branch doesn't cause revision
On 02/04/12 10:24, Gary wrote:
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 08:27, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Henrik Sundberg
Do you have a precommit hook now that was not there when revs 81-82
were committed?
There are no hooks as far as I know. (I'm not an admin, and the admin is
From: Giulio Troccoli
On 02/04/12 08:27, Gary wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Henrik Sundberg
>>
>>> Do you have a precommit hook now that was not there when revs 81-82
>> were committed?
>> There are no hooks as far as I know. (I'm not an admin, and the admin is not
>> very forthc
Am 30.03.2012 15:25, schrieb Gary:
> I see a lot of reports of this error, but little in the way of
> clear information as to what it might mean, or how to fix it:
>
> $ svnsync sync file://`pwd`/dest
> Committed revision 1.
> Copied properties for revision 1.
> Transmitting file data
On 02/04/12 08:27, Gary wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Henrik Sundberg
Do you have a precommit hook now that was not there when revs 81-82
were committed?
There are no hooks as far as I know. (I'm not an admin, and the admin is not
very forthcoming on.. well, anything, really).
- Original Message -
From: Henrik Sundberg
> Do you have a precommit hook now that was not there when revs 81-82
were committed?
There are no hooks as far as I know. (I'm not an admin, and the admin is not
very forthcoming on.. well, anything, really).
> Svn log will show the revisions
21 matches
Mail list logo
