On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are some vetos in the 1.6.x branch that seem like they are
>> questioning the change, not just whether it was a candidate for
>> backport. What does that mean for trunk and 1.7? Here are the items
>> I am thinking of (leaving out the items that were vetoed only because
>> they were not considered appropriate for a fix release):
>>
>> * r921453, r927184, r927243
>> Fix reopened issue #3020 'Reflect dropped/renumbered revisions in
>> svn:mergeinfo data during svnadmin load'
>> Justification:
>> Prior to this fix, when loading a partial dump with mergeinfo, the
>> resulting mergeinfo in the target repository could refer to non-existent
>> revisions or revisions that have nothing to do with the merge source
>> in the original repository. The original fix for issue assumed that
>> the dump stream was for a complete repository.
>> Notes:
>> r921453 and 927184 are tests, r927243 is the fix.
>> Branch:
>> ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue3020
>> Votes:
>> +1: kameshj
>> -1: pburba (There is a regression with this fix, see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-03/0716.shtml)
>
> The primary "fix" for issue #3020, r927243, was reverted on trunk
> (r936387). Issue #3020 then spawned a slew of partial fixes (25
> separate changes). A few problems still exist but are not scheduled
> to be fixed, see
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3020#desc20.
>
> I'd like to remove this nomination from STATUS since it makes no sense
> to nominate a change that has been reverted, any objections?
None here.
> P.S. None of these 25 fixes was backported to 1.6.x. Some are are not
> suitable for backport because they introduce changes to dump's output
> (e.g. r937033) but many probably could be backported. My memory is a
> bit foggy on this, but IIRC I felt 1.7 was coming "real soon now" so
> held off on backporting (it was/is going to be a bit of a beast to
> backport and review). Backporting these has remained a low priority
> on my TODO list. I'm happy to bump it up if we feel that is the right
> course of action.
+0. If folks are asking for it, go ahead, but I'm not too concerned.
-Hyrum
Received on 2011-05-18 20:27:01 CEST