Thanks all for the responses.
Daniel wrote:
> Does it load successfully if you disable rep-sharing in fsfs.conf on the
> 1.8.19 repository?
>
I do not have rep-sharing enabled (on either repository).
>
> The two -1's imply that both sides of the collision are part of the same
> revision --- the r
Our current Subversion server is 1.8.5. We are trying to setup a replacement
server, on which I have installed 1.8.19.
The svnadmin load command on the 1.8.19 server for one of the repository dump
files only comes up repeatedly with this error about 80% of the way through the
revisions:
svnadm
ing
what happened.
Both approches require people to follow some new workflow rules, but
the externals route seems to require fewer.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Didn't I buy a 1951
at Packard from you las
On 2016-04-26, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.04.2016 02:09, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> Thanks again! Now I just have to decided whether to use
>> intra-repository externals or nested working copies to share
>> directories of source code among a group of projects. It may depe
rce code among a
group of projects. It may depend on how smartsvn handles
tagging/branching that involves externals. I see that tortoisesvn has
something akin to --pin-externals, but haven't figured out if smartsvn
has something like that.
--
Grant
uff get dropped?
2) Are there server-side version dependancies for use of the
--pin-externals option? Or will it work with any server version?
Where does one find documentation for 1.9 versions (the book only
covers versions up to 1.8)?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards
I'm running
SVN client (svn, version 1.8.8 (r1568071, from Collabnet RPM) (NOTE I've
tried a few different SVN versions on different machines for client side,
same results)
SVN server is running Subversion Edge 4.0.5
So I was trying to get an external tool(Crucible) to interact with our SVN
databa
SVN Version: 1.8.8 (part of a Collabnet 4.0.5 install)
OS: RHEL 5.10
So today I just got an alert that my disk space for dumps ran out. The
dumps typically take about 2.4 gigs of space uncompressed. I noticed
yesterdays suddenly went to 4 gigs.
And now, it hits about 40 gigs before I run out
>> Shouldn't the svnrdump issue be investigated regardless?
>It would help if you provided more information: which version of Subversion
>are you using? What sort of changes does the problem revision contain? Which
>>files are not being closed?
Run "lsof" on the process when it is running
I am trying to get subversion source. I followed the download links from
http://subversion.apache.org/download/#supported-releases which point me at
the mirror
http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/subversion/subversion-1.7.17.tar.bz2 I
have downloaded both this and
http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/subv
I
would give the developer access to all necessary files. If it turns
out I didn't grant access to enough files, I can always add one or
more files to the accessible list. Can you give me an example of a
situation that would break my proposed development methodology?
- Grant
>> I&#
at seems only slightly more
secure than trust to me.
All of the big enterprise websites allow each of their developers to
check out a full working copy of the company code with only an NDA/NCC
to protect them? It would be so easy for any of them to use, sell, or
give the code away, or even to acc
ing on separate things that
happen to interact with each other? They wouldn't be able to test
their changes properly as they're coding. How is that handled? A
separate dev machine for each developer?
I think I'm missing something here. Could someone straighten me out?
- Grant
ng straight from the development
> workspace where changes are being made would be more risky.
Is it risky because I would be using rsync instead of svn update, or
is it risky because I wouldn't be using a test/staging machine? Why
can't testing be done on the dev machine?
- Grant
a checked out copy of the branch or you
> can merge the approved changes back to the trunk. But any way you
> approach it, if you don't want a single repository holding all work,
> you probably don't want to use subversion.
My workflow above only describes a single repository on the dev
machine, the production machine wouldn't have a repository. rsync
would synchronize the source files, not the repository.
- Grant
achine's files to
the production machine.
6. Steps 2-5 are repeated.
Is this any better?
- Grant
x27;m doing this, the server-side code for my website is
in a series of many files. I'd like to hire a dev to work on some of
those files, but I don't want to give him read or write access to any
of the files besides the ones he is working on. The problem is, each
of the files can't be coded in isolation. He needs to be able to test
his changes in a running version of the website.
- Grant
.
- Grant
18 matches
Mail list logo
