Re: SVNSERVE Tests Failing

Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:

> It has, however, been *unintentially* broken since Wednesday. Please
> don't use such needlessly accusatory phrasing -- what do you gain by
> it?

This isn't the first time you've thought i was being
antagonistic. I seem to have trouble communicating with you, and
for that i apologize.

I saw that the code was calling a function pointer that would not
be set, and it was *known* that it would not be set; heck, that
same revision commented on that fact. It looked like you had
committed broken code with the intent to come back and fix it
later. I asked if that was true, and hoped it wasn't.

Greg Hudson set me straight; he told me you were counting on the
code that confused me not being executed. Ah, OK, now i get it.
I got the answer to "please tell me it hasn't been intentionally
broken" there.

I was not trying to be antagonistic.

--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org

Build a fire for a man, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -Terry Pratchett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 2 02:06:32 2003