On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Alexander Kitaev wrote:
...
> Interesting, that at the same time one of the JavaSVN users also asked me to
> optionally remove "readme.txt" file from .svn directory, also to save disk
> space, as he has a lot of directories in his working copy.
This also speeds up file access time on brain-dead file systems (like those
found on Windows). Nice change!
> I didn't tested it well though, but as far as I understood the idea of that
> feature is that empty properties files are not written to disk at all.
Yup, you got it.
> Development version of JavaSVN already supports that (i.e. does not save
> empty prop files) and version in 1.0.x branch will not fail on empty or
> non-existent properties files (and actually it didn't fail before, but I
> reviewed a code just to make sure that file existance is expicitly checked).
It used to explicitly look for the string literal "END" in the file. IIRC,
it raised an exception if that wasn't found.
> I'm wating for 1.3-rc1 binaries to test it on my windows computer. I will
> appreciate a lot if anyone could build Subversion 1.3 from sourcese for me.
You might want to shoot a mail over to the dev@subversion list; some of the
developers have Windows environments.
> > p.s. I'm really hesitant about eating off of a development
> > branch. At a minimum, the source for the JavaSVN JAR
> > included in svnClientAdapter (and thus Subclipse) should be
> > easily reproducable. Would it be possible to get a beta or
> > alpha tag for the version of JavaSVN we include?
> Version of JavaSVN included into Subclipse 0.9.36 is taken from "stable"
> branch that will soon be released as 1.0.x.
> Revision number is 1652, branch URL is
> http://72.9.228.230/svn/jsvn/branches/1.0.x/
> This version is stable and pass all relevant Subversion 1.2.3 python tests
> and most of 1.3 ones. I could make a tag for that version of course.
Kinda puzzling that 0.9.36 is taken off of the 1.0.x branch, but whatever. :)
Just so long as the exact source code can be reproduced without too much
trouble, we're all good.
Received on Thu Oct 27 08:50:58 2005