On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:03:30AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:51:54PM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> > Would this now be a good time to open a ticket to try to get this in a
> > future release version?
>
> No need, I'll try to take care of this fix myself.
> Thanks
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:51:54PM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> Would this now be a good time to open a ticket to try to get this in a
> future release version?
No need, I'll try to take care of this fix myself.
Thanks for your report!
Hi Stefan
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:18:15PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> This patch is sufficient to make it work in my testing.
> Can you confirm?
I can. Thanks a lot!
I downloaded the source of 1.8.0 and compiled that (Debian Wheezy plus a
new copy of serf because I wanted to test using ht
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 01:39:33PM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 06:34:09PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > By design, there are many cases where the working copy code ends up
> > searching the directory hierarchy upwards for a wc.db database in
> > a .svn directory.
>
>
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 06:34:09PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> By design, there are many cases where the working copy code ends up
> searching the directory hierarchy upwards for a wc.db database in
> a .svn directory.
Does it stop once it finds one, or does it continue to search further
up? I
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 10:56:03AM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> As to the original problem: is there any chance the 'nested' checkout
> could be made to work? Subversion could just ignore any upper-level .svn
> directories. What is done here is a fresh checkout. There is no need to
> check anythi
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 05:44:24PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> You mean "working copy" (the copy being checked out), not "repository"
> (the database we check out from).
I do, I am sorry for my lax words.
> I would argue that you were relying on an implementation detail.
> Nowhere does t
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 06:39:27AM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> My theory is that the checkout of the contained repository tries to look
> into .svn of the containing repository, and finds it 'currently used'.
You mean "working copy" (the copy being checked out), not "repository"
(the database w
Hi,
I am trying to find out if some new behavior we see with version 1.7 is
considered a bug (I would).
What we try to do is assembling a larger piece of software from tens or
hundreds of repositories. In that, checkouts might also live within
checkouts of other svn repositories. We usually check
