[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1071330 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ subversion/tests/ subversion/tests/cmdline/ subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/ subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/ subversion/tests/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/tests/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/tests/libsvn_r...

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:49:45 +0100

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:56:55AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> hwright_at_apache.org wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 17:58:00 -0000:
> > Author: hwright
> > Date: Wed Feb 16 17:58:00 2011
> > New Revision: 1071330
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1071330&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Merge r1051744, r1051745, r1053185, r1053241 from trunk, using the instructions
> > included below:
> >
> > * r1051744, r1051745, r1053185, r1053241
> > Add additional assertions to the unit tests that use
> > svn_fs_commit_txn() and svn_repos_svn_commit_txn().
> ...
> > Diff:
> > svn diff -x-p ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x_at_1052423 \
> > ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r1051744_at_HEAD
> > Notes:
> > Merge all the changes on the 1.6.x-r1051744 branch and then merge
> > r1051745.
> > Votes:
> > +1: blair, danielsh, stsp
>
> What? There was a 'diff' command so I just used that. If the
> instructions to merge are "Merge the branch, then merge another
> revision", then I haven't reviewed the additional revision.

I fell into the same trap and I've already complained about it.
See http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-02/0554.shtml
and Blair's reply: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-02/0566.shtml
Received on 2011-02-19 12:50:27 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.