Is /staging/ not actually used, contrary to the README? ... I've seen some
recent mods directly to publish, but (given my general, recent absence)
followed the README and just modified /staging/.
Should I just merge this mod to publish, and stop using staging?
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:46 AM, <gstein_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: gstein
> Date: Tue Feb 27 13:46:48 2018
> New Revision: 1825449
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1825449&view=rev
> Log:
> rewrite unclear sentence. fix typo.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html
>
> Modified: subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/staging/docs/
> release-notes/1.10.html?rev=1825449&r1=1825448&r2=1825449&view=diff
> ============================================================
> ==================
> --- subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html (original)
> +++ subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html Tue Feb 27
> 13:46:48 2018
> @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ version, which still uses zlib compressi
> title="Link to this section">¶</a>
> </h4>
>
> -<p>The default filesystem format is now a new format, numbered 8. The
> format
> +<p>The default filesystem format has been upgraded to version 8. The
> format
> bump is required to allow using LZ4 compression for the data that is
> stored
> on the disk. (The <tt>svnadmin info</tt> command displays the filesystem
> format number of a repository.)</p>
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ as a single, efficient server-side query
>
> <p><tt>svnbench</tt> now displays its wall-clock run time and the total
> number of bytes transferred across the network. The
> <tt>--with-no-revprops</tt>
> -option which did not actually work in Subversion 1.9 haas been fixed.</p>
> +option which did not actually work in Subversion 1.9 has been fixed.</p>
>
> </div> <!-- svnbench -->
>
>
>
>
Received on 2018-02-27 15:35:51 CET