Here are the messages that have been received prior to 7/13/09 12:14 AM:
Topic (messages 47,142 through 47,160):
[PATCH] Update the Python bindings installer generator documentation
47,157 by : Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever.FTA_at_GMail.Com> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:51:00 +0200
47,145 by : =?UTF-8?B?0KDQvtC80LDQvSDQlNC+0L3Rh9C10L3QutC+?= <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:47:44 +0400
[PATCH] fix several errors in polish l10n
47,160 by : =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= <sedzimir_at_mgorny.alt.pl> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:22:47 +0200
47,155 by : Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:43:06 +0200
47,154 by : =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= <sedzimir_at_mgorny.alt.pl> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:06:06 +0200
Recursive deletion of property throws unnecessary warning
47,153 by : Geoff Rowell <geoff.rowell_at_gmail.com> sent on : Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:07:06 -0400
Patch Manager additional task?
47,152 by : Gavin Baumanis <gavinb_at_eclinic.com.au> sent on : Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:21:27 +1000
47,151 by : Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:21 +0300 (Jerusalem Daylight Time)
47,150 by : Gavin Baumanis <gavinb_at_eclinic.com.au> sent on : Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:53:58 +1000
47,149 by : Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever.FTA_at_GMail.Com> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:43:58 +0200
47,148 by : Gavin Baumanis <gavinb_at_eclinic.com.au> sent on : Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:32:58 +1000
Discussion message digest
47,142 by : dev-digest_at_subversion.tigris.org sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
[OT] Re: Discussion message digest
47,144 by : John Peacock <john.peacock_at_havurah-software.org> sent on : Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:37:23 -0400
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ETAS Mail Security - http://intranet.etasgroup.com/encryption |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - The message was not encrypted and not digitally signed |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2370846
attached mail follows:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:43:06 +0200, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Michał Górny<sedzimir_at_mgorny.alt.pl>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:11:23 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Committed in r37304.
>>
>> Also thanks for spampublishing my e-mail address. I felt so lonely
>> without
>> loads of spam.
>
> That may have been caused by using it on this mailing list too.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But you can also take a look at this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Micha%C5%82+G%C3%B3rny&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all
5th place for
http://www.red-bean.com/svnproject/contribulyzer/detail/sedzimir%40mgorny.html
I think that it should at least try to *minimally* tweak the e-mail
address instead of putting it in cleartext. Consider this as a bugreport.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
http://mgorny.alt.pl/
<xmpp:mgorny_at_jabber.ru>
attached mail follows:
attached mail follows:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Michał Górny<sedzimir_at_mgorny.alt.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:11:23 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Committed in r37304.
>
> Also thanks for spampublishing my e-mail address. I felt so lonely without
> loads of spam.
That may have been caused by using it on this mailing list too.
Bye,
Erik.
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:11:23 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Committed in r37304.
Also thanks for spampublishing my e-mail address. I felt so lonely without
loads of spam.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
http://mgorny.alt.pl/
<xmpp:mgorny_at_jabber.ru>
attached mail follows:
- Subversion 1.6.3 on Windows
When recursively deleting a property from a working copy, an unnecessary
warning is thrown because the property isn't defined on the root working
copy folder.
svn pd my:property /my/wc -R
property ' my:property ' deleted from '/my/wc/subfolder'
.
svn: Attempting to delete nonexistent property 'my:property'
---
Geoff Rowell
geoff.rowell_at_gmail.com
attached mail follows:
Hi Daniel,
As always thanks for the reply and thoughts.
On 13/07/2009, at 2:45 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Gavin Baumanis wrote on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 at 01:32 +1000:
>> A non-committer submits a patch to the project.
>> The patch is reviewed by another non-committer.
>> There may or may not be some corrections / amendments - but
>> ultimately, the patch is reviewed favorably.
>>
>> The issue is this use-case, is that the patch submission now
>> languishes in a "void" of sorts.
>> It's been reviewed, but does not get committed.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Ultimately, my question is;
>> For the specific use-case above is it appropriate for the PM to
>> commit
>> the "languishing" patch submission?
>>
>
> And if a bug is found in code that entered the repository this way,
> who is
> responsible for it?
>
The OP, The reviewer, and the PM I suppose.
The process perhaps?
>> So testing code will certainly be "easy enough" and I'd certainly
>> like
>> to think that my svn "technical" skills will get better the more I am
>> involved, but is it enough?
>>
>
> Testing does not substitute review: if you tested a patch but don't
> feel
> your skills allow you to +1 it, then (IMO) you shouldn't commit it.
>
I'm not proposing at all that a patch that has not been reviewed
should be committed.
If "Bob" writes a patch to fix an issue he is having.
and "John" says I used your patch and it fixed my problem, but I
changed x and z.
Bob agrees that X and z was a good change and that indeed it works
properly now
And,
the patch is properly formatted, has an appropriate log message etc
etc...
and for whatever sits around and gathers dust and doesn't get committed.
I ping the list asking for review etc.
But it still doesn't get any interest from a full committer.
Normally I would send it to the issue tracker.
At this point - and not before, do I propose that the PM could
instead, commit the change.
I don't have any burning desire, as such, for doing the committing, it
was more brought about by is the project doing it all it can to
support patch submissions... and for the few that don't get
committed... are we treating them as best we can? As the PM, what MORE
can I do (if anything) if "ping" requests receive no response -
without sending it off to the issue tracker where it is now - out of
sight / out of mind.
It's frustrating to me, in the sense that it happens so very rarely -
really... that it should be a non-issue and thus I shouldn't really
need to worry about it all - but none the less it does happen and can
be frustrating for the OP and subsequently me too a little since I am
not in a position to really do anything about it to assist the OP.
It is sincerely about supporting the patch proposal and submitter as
best as we can that has me raising this email in the first place, I'm
certainly not going to take it personally - I simply don't have the
skills yet.
I am more than happy take advice in any direction that might help the
above scenario.
Gavin.
> Daniel
>
>> Really, It's a case of whether or not you feel it is a task you want
>> the PM doing?
>
>> Anyway - I put it out there for discussion.
>>
>> Gavin.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2370767
attached mail follows:
Gavin Baumanis wrote on Mon, 13 Jul 2009 at 01:32 +1000:
> A non-committer submits a patch to the project.
> The patch is reviewed by another non-committer.
> There may or may not be some corrections / amendments - but
> ultimately, the patch is reviewed favorably.
>
> The issue is this use-case, is that the patch submission now
> languishes in a "void" of sorts.
> It's been reviewed, but does not get committed.
>
> ...
>
> Ultimately, my question is;
> For the specific use-case above is it appropriate for the PM to commit
> the "languishing" patch submission?
>
And if a bug is found in code that entered the repository this way, who is
responsible for it?
> So testing code will certainly be "easy enough" and I'd certainly like
> to think that my svn "technical" skills will get better the more I am
> involved, but is it enough?
>
Testing does not substitute review: if you tested a patch but don't feel
your skills allow you to +1 it, then (IMO) you shouldn't commit it.
Daniel
> Really, It's a case of whether or not you feel it is a task you want
> the PM doing?
> Anyway - I put it out there for discussion.
>
> Gavin.
attached mail follows:
Hi Arfrever,
On 13/07/2009, at 1:43 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-07-12 17:32:58 Gavin Baumanis napisał(a):
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I was going to write in reply to a recent post by Roman,
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2370754
>> - but didn't want to hijack his thread with something not entirely
>> related to his patch submission.
>>
>> Basically, the following text comes in response to a specific use-
>> case.
>>
>> A non-committer submits a patch to the project.
>> The patch is reviewed by another non-committer.
>
> David James is a full committer...
While I'll admit to not checking the COMMITTERS list prior to my
email, the use-case is none the less still valid or more broadly,
Regardless of who reviews a patch submission, it can still receive a
positive review and not get committed.
Gavin.
attached mail follows:
attached mail follows:
Hi Everyone,
I was going to write in reply to a recent post by Roman,
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2370754
- but didn't want to hijack his thread with something not entirely
related to his patch submission.
Basically, the following text comes in response to a specific use-case.
A non-committer submits a patch to the project.
The patch is reviewed by another non-committer.
There may or may not be some corrections / amendments - but
ultimately, the patch is reviewed favorably.
The issue is this use-case, is that the patch submission now
languishes in a "void" of sorts.
It's been reviewed, but does not get committed.
"Normally" this isn't a problem though.
A full-committer normally involves themselves in patch submissions and
after relevant review / re-factoring etc (the full-committer) commits
the submission on behalf of the OP.
As PM I can simply ping the list and attempt to get the patch some
attention - but it is simply that - an attempt.
In my relative short time as PM, I have logged a few patch submissions
into the issue tracker, purely because they failed to get appropriate
"full-committer" attention - even after pinging the list 2 or 3 times
after their original submission.
Ultimately, my question is;
For the specific use-case above is it appropriate for the PM to commit
the "languishing" patch submission?
The following is a quick list of positives and negatives to help with
discussion / decision making.
For:
Allows the PM to commit submissions that have been reviewed by non-
full-committers.
Assists full-committers - in sense of workload.
Allows us (the project) to keep the patch submitter enthusiastic about
the Subversion Project, as they see their work being incorporated.
The project uses Subversion, so at the very worst - any commit made in
error can be simply reverted.
Against:
Requires the PM to have commit access.
(Previously this may not have been issue. Eg. the previous PM, Daniel
Shahaf was a full-committer and as far as I know, it may well be
"expected" of the PM to do exactly what I am proposing anyway).
Against me personally is the fact that I do not extensively know about
Subversion development.
At the moment, the very best I could do is;
- ensure the design standard is followed.
- formatting
- an appropriate log message exists
- the patch has been favorably reviewed etc
and that's pretty much about it.
I could re-build a local copy of SVN with the patch - attempt the task
for which it (the patch) applies and ensure it works for it's intended
purpose.
I could even run the test suite - but seriously I wouldn't know if a
test failure was specifically related to "this" submission or
something else.
Then there is a PM (role) issue.
Let's just assume that people feel favorably about me having commit
rights for the specific use-case above.
Would this be a something just for me? or would it now become an
expectation of the PM Role (if it isn't already) ?
On a selling point of me... I have just volunteered a spare windows
server box and a Mac to the buildbot farm and am currently working
with Lieven to get that happening.
So testing code will certainly be "easy enough" and I'd certainly like
to think that my svn "technical" skills will get better the more I am
involved, but is it enough?
Really, It's a case of whether or not you feel it is a task you want
the PM doing?
and finally, do you trust me (personally) enough to do it and grant me
the required rights?
Though realistically, rights can be revoked just as quickly as they're
given: and since we are using Subversion, any commit made in error can
be reverted too.
So is it a "real" risk in the scheme of things?
Anyway - I put it out there for discussion.
Gavin.
attached mail follows:
David James <james82_at_gmail.com> писал в своём письме Tue, 07 Jul 2009
01:50:12 +0400:
> 2009/7/5 Роман Донченко <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Finally I was able to go back to what I was originally going to do --
>> update that README. Only this time I know that what I wrote is actually
>> true. ;=]
>>
>> Note: I removed the "using Visual C++ 6.0" part, since it doesn't appear
>> to be relevant anymore. I build with VC++ 2008 against VC++
>> 2005-compiled
>> Python, and the bindings work fine.
>>
>> [[[
>> Update the Python bindings installer generator documentation.
>>
>> * packages/python-windows/README.txt: Bump the version numbers; update
>> the
>> file list to match the current state of affairs. Miscellaneous tweaks on
>> the text.
>> ]]]
>
> As usual, great patch. +1.
Well... Are we waiting for something?
Pingfully yours,
Roman.
attached mail follows:
dev-digest_at_subversion.tigris.org wrote:
> Here are the messages that have been received prior to 7/12/09 12:16 AM:
>
Would someone who has admin rights to the lists please disable email to:
stefan.fuhrmann_at_etas.de
since he apparently has gone on vacation and his email server is too stupid to
live and replies to the digest messages. I blame:
ETAS Mail Security - http://intranet.etasgroup.com/encryption
but that's just at a guess...
Thanks
John
attached mail follows:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ETAS Mail Security - http://intranet.etasgroup.com/encryption |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - The message was not encrypted and not digitally signed |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Received on 2009-07-13 09:14:54 CEST