On Nov 26, 2007 5:31 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> glasser@tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: glasser
> > Date: Mon Nov 26 11:47:33 2007
> > New Revision: 28034
> >
> > Log:
> > STATUS: Note that an approved revision conflicts.
> >
> >
> > Modified:
> > branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> >
> > Modified: branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> > URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.4.x/STATUS?pathrev=28034&r1=28033&r2=28034
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- branches/1.4.x/STATUS (original)
> > +++ branches/1.4.x/STATUS Mon Nov 26 11:47:33 2007
> > @@ -137,5 +137,8 @@
> > Justification:
> > WC library bug fix.
> > Branch: TBD
> > + Notes:
> > + glasser tried to merge this but it really conflicts. Can one of
> > + the people who voted for it merge it?
> > Votes:
> > +1: dionisos, dlr, hwright
> >
>
> A bit of investigation reveals this change to be dependent on r21596,
> which fixes part of issue 2530. We could try to resolve the conflict in
> the standard way (i.e., a conflict branch) or we could propose r21596
> for backport and make r25833 conditional upon its successful merge.
>
> A cursory review of r21596 leads me to think that it would be a valid
> candidate for backport. Garrett, does this sound right?
Yeah, it seems (at first glance, I haven't actually tried to merge it
or anything) like it should be a reasonable backport candidate.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 27 00:01:21 2007