[ Please, if possible, use plain-text on this mailing list, and use
bottom-posting (putting your reply at the bottom, or inline to the
thing you're replying to). More below ... ]
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:08 PM, wrote:
> These files were never changed in the first place, that's the weird part.
>
On 09/03/16 16:44, Niemann, Hartmut wrote:
Hi!
I learned that finer-as-per-repository-grained read access is rather
"expensive" in terms of server load
because rights have to be checked for each file updated.
So it would be best that you have separate repositories for separate "read"
user gr
Hi!
I learned that finer-as-per-repository-grained read access is rather
"expensive" in terms of server load
because rights have to be checked for each file updated.
So it would be best that you have separate repositories for separate "read"
user groups.
I have not heared about somebody who use
Env: Server 1.9.3 (Windows) and client 1.8.15(Linux-Centos6.5) being run by all
users.
We are in the mist of refactoring the directory structure. i.e. What's the
process when converting a directory to use svn:externals?:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-users/201603.mbox/%3C18
Server 1.9.3 (Windows) and client 1.8.15(Linux-Centos6.5)
We are in the mist of refactoring our directory structure from the monolithic
(Clearcase imported) directory structure to moving subdirectories to new
repositories and using svn:externals with pegged versions back into the primary
product
These files were never changed in the first place, that's the weird part.We
aren't using any local locks in the repo. Brent
From: Johan Corveleyn
To: webster.br...@rogers.com
Cc: "users@subversion.apache.org"
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Weird Behaviour: Fi
hi everybody,
I realize this certainly is somewhere in books but I'm
hoping few experts would not mind sharing their
thoughts/recommendations on how to...
set up svn structure where interface to it is only http and
flexibility + ability to finely grain user access is the key
objective - thu
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:50 AM, wrote:
> It was 1.8.14 client.
>
> It just said "Reverted " and the subsequent "svn status" made no
> mention of the .
Okay. I guess you cannot investigate anymore whether the content of
those files was really reverted (changed), or whether it was just some
unint
One of our Subversion 1.9 users is encountering a slow SSL handshake (or
maybe even subsequent connection) to a Jetty 7.6.16.v20140903 server.
This happens on Windows and OSX. Interestingly, when using Subversion
1.7, access works fast as expected. Also, accessing the same URL using
curl or fro
