On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM, <rhuijben_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Mon Jun 7 21:10:22 2010
> New Revision: 952439
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=952439&view=rev
> Log:
> * STATUS: Cast some votes
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=952439&r1=952438&r2=952439&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Mon Jun 7 21:10:22 2010
> @@ -137,6 +137,8 @@ Candidate changes:
> Sanity checks should themselves be sane.
> Votes:
> +1: cmpilato
> + -0: This introduces new issues like #3242 and might break reintegrate
^^^
Needs your name :-)
> + where it previously worked. (Untested)
Hi Bert,
I don't see how we would now provoke any issue #3242 problems. We
still open the RA session to WC_REPOS_ROOT (i.e. the reintegrate
target), the same as we did prior to r952439.
All r952439 really does is fix the sanity check that the reintegrate
target and source are from the same repos; previously it always
compared the target root repos to itself!
If you are seeing something I am not please let me know.
Thanks,
Paul
Received on 2010-06-08 17:16:41 CEST