On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 17:11 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > > Hi Julian,
> > >
> > > would you be so kind and review your -1 on the r38000 group in 1.6.x? There
> > > are a lot of improvements, and I'd give my +1 but am reluctant to push the
> > > issue with only elego votes on it.
> > >
> > > So, even, a +1 from you would be nice, if you find you can award one.
> > Hi Neels. Yes, sorry, I've got it flagged and haven't done it yet. I'll
> > at least remove my -1 as I can do so quickly but can't review the whole
> > thing until at least the day after tomorrow.
> I've now reviewed the main parts of 1.6.x-r38000_at_HEAD and am happy. Now
> I've "just" got to review the test and repos_diff.c.
> Please put your +1 there anyway if you can, or +0 if that's how it is,
> and if Stephen can review the latest changes and +1 them we will be
> nearly there.
Right, we're nearly there. I have at last finished reviewing this, and
I'm happy with repos_diff and the test too, and have voted for it.
I fired off build-bot builds on this branch and had to merge one further
small change, r38198, to correct the path separators for Windows. I see
Stefan has already updated his vote. I'm re-running the build-bots now.
Attached is a log message that I've created to describe the whole change
on the branch, relative to 1.6.x. Writing and reading this log message
helped me to understand and review the change.
Received on 2009-09-28 15:49:43 CEST