On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Les Mikesell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> >
> >> This policy is more a result of the community's capabilities than
> anything
> >> else. The decision to not shi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> [ Changing the Subject line because this thread has drifted to a different
> topic. ]
>
>>
>> But, that puts it at odds with running it on a stable Linux distribution...
>
> So what is different with any other software that these distribut
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>> I do not think it will ever happen though because generally Red Hat is
>> only going to backport fixes that have been deemed critical to
>> security.
>
> That's really an overgeneral
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> I do not think it will ever happen though because generally Red Hat is
> only going to backport fixes that have been deemed critical to
> security.
That's really an overgeneralization - they do that within minor
release versions, but when
[ Changing the Subject line because this thread has drifted to a different
topic. ]
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:44:32PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ryan Schmidt
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it doesn't seem that bad today. I'm just pointing out that there
> >> wi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >
>> This policy is more a result of the community's capabilities than anything
>> else. The decision to not ship all fixes to 1.6 users is a compromise.
>> We were shipping all kind
On May 31, 2012, at 14:44, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ryan Schmidt
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it doesn't seem that bad today. I'm just pointing out that there
>>> will very likely be a large user base continuing to run some version
>>> of 1.6.x for 5 to 10 years in t
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, it doesn't seem that bad today. I'm just pointing out that there
>> will very likely be a large user base continuing to run some version
>> of 1.6.x for 5 to 10 years in the future.
>
> That's fine, if you don't mind running old so
On May 31, 2012, at 12:45, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>
>> This policy is more a result of the community's capabilities than anything
>> else. The decision to not ship all fixes to 1.6 users is a compromise.
>> We were shipping all kinds of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >
> This policy is more a result of the community's capabilities than anything
> else. The decision to not ship all fixes to 1.6 users is a compromise.
> We were shipping all kinds of bugfixes for 1.6 users between March 2009
> and October
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> >
> >> > We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore.
> >> > The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes.
> >>
> >> Do you happen to know
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >
>> > We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore.
>> > The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes.
>>
>> Do you happen to know how the decision is made to update the
>> subversion rpm included in RHEL6
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:22:41PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> By code inspection I would guess that 1.7 has the same problem, however.
> Can you confirm that? If so, please file an issue. I believe there might
> be a bug where the merge compares a version of the file with keywords
> expanded t
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:00:58AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >
> > We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore.
> > The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes.
>
> Do you happen to know how the decisi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore.
> The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes.
Do you happen to know how the decision is made to update the
subversion rpm included in RHEL6.x? Projects tha
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:36:56PM +0100, neil.tu...@rwe.com wrote:
> I would like to confirm this issue in v 1.6.17 - using binary files
> via TortoiseSVN. Test scenario was to create a binary file in trunk
> with the "svn:keywords = Revision" property set*; branch the trunk to
> $BAU; change the
g; Brackett,
> Faye
> Subject: Re: Merge bug -- svn:keywords and conflict resolution
>
> Stephen Butler wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:35:27 +0200:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote:
> >
> > > I did not ge
Stephen Butler wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:35:27 +0200:
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote:
>
> > I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming nor
> > denying.
>
> We're an open community, as you know. If something is neither confirm
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote:
> I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming nor
> denying.
We're an open community, as you know. If something is neither confirmed nor
denied, then nothing happened. :-)
> So I guess the next step is to f
I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming nor denying.
So I guess the next step is to file an issue?
-Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D)
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:26 AM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Cc: Brackett, Faye
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
