On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008-10-18 16:13:34 Mark Phippard napisał(a):
>> I did not get the impression the bug was THAT bad. It sounds like you
>> are going by the wording of the backport proposal which makes it sound
>> like merge is completely broken. I am not against a 1.5.4 but I'd
>> like to hear from Paul. Perhaps we ought to just move up the 1.5.4
>> schedule so that it happens in early November?
>
> +1 for tagging 1.5.4 circa 2008-11-10.
>
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> > (Changing the subject line.)
>> >
>> > On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 05:54 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> >> Greg Stein wrote:
>> >> > Should we yank 1.5.3 and publish a 1.5.4 right away?
>> >> >
>> >> > If this is a regression, then it seems we ought to pop out a 1.5.4 right away.
>> >>
>> >> Fine by me, if others feel that we need to. (Don't stay silent on this, people,
>> >> I'd like a few +1's before going through the effort here.)
>> >>
>> >> -Hyrum
Thinking about this a bit more, I'd like to see 1.5.4 as soon as possible. Why?
A) This *is* a regression from 1.5.2.
B) While merge isn't completely broken, it's fairly simple to trigger
this problem: Rename a directory in trunk and try to merge that change
to any of our branches, you'll get a "svn:
'/repos/svn/!svn/bc/some/branch/path' path not found" error.
C) There is a workaround for B, perform the merge with
--ignore-ancestry and the required revision range(s) and then repeat
the merge with --record-only and the same ranges. But determining the
"required revision range(s)" can be quite cumbersome.
Paul
Received on 2008-10-20 14:13:04 CEST