Re: Removing leftover backport branches

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> > backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
> [...]
>
> > 1.8.x
> > Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
>
> Ugh. Thanks for reporting this discrepancy. There is a mess here.
>

A typical case of BCD ;) - Bad Commit Day or Bad Code Day.

> First, it IS modified; I committed the branch creation and modification
> together ;-)
>

May bad, I didn't log verbosely. -v revealed that

  Bert: 1.7.x-issue-4295

is actually modified as well.

> It was proposed for backport, but the process went wrong.
>
> "svn log --stop-on-copy --search 1619380 --diff" shows:
>
> In r1619394 I "Nominate r1619380 group (diffing a copied dir with props)".
>
> In r1619401 I "Mention the backport branch for the r1619380 group" ... by
> adding this to the nomination:
>
> + Branch:
> + ^/subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1611379
>
> Oops, I wrote the wrong branch name (copy-and-paste-o). My apologies.
>
> Then Bert and Stefan approve this nomination, and in r1640665 the
> 'svn-role' robot merges the mentioned (wrong) branch.
>

I obviously didn't check the branch contents vs. the claimed revisions :(
Luckily, the named_atomics code modified in r1611379 should be ineffective
in 1.8.x by now.

> The r1611379 branch was for a separate nomination, "Fix revprop caching
> initialization delays for ra_serf on Windows". It was first mentioned in
> STATUS in r1612544 and was WITHDRAWN in r1620644, replaced by r1619774
> "Disable the revprop caching feature".
>
> But it has been merged anyway. So now we need to:
>
> * undo the merge of the 1.8.x-r1611379 branch
>

+1.

  * re-nominate my original nomination.
>

+1.

-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2014-12-08 17:43:06 CET