> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sounds great!
> The way to get commit access is to post some patches; if they're
> clean, conform to the HACKING guidelines, and solve more problems than
> they create :-), then a committer will nominate you to the other
> committers and they'll vote (privately, of course).
> You might start out with just commit access to the SWIG area, if
> that's what all your patches are against; but note that this is the
> general process for getting commit access to the whole tree.
> (I know you've already attached some patches to issue #990. You may
> not be aware that the filenames are lost, and only the attachment ID
> identifies the attachment, so you might want to put a new comment
> listing exactly which attachments need to be applied. I haven't
> reviewed that patch myself, as I'm fairly at sea in a Windows
> environment, been hoping a Win32 developer would take a look at it,
> hint hint... :-) )
I was unaware of this, as the only one who had responded to my previous
patch announcements didn't have any commit access himself, and was
submitting a patch directly to me. I do know that Brane, who seems to be in
charge of Win32 is out on vacation, so I don't want to bother him directly
at this point. I do know that I'm a bit uncertain and shaky on the whole
idea of submitting patches via Issuezilla, if the filename will be lost.
Anyways, the two patches and one addition should be applied in the following
1. Patch with svn200302251332.diff This covers subversion.dsw,
subversion/bindings/swig/apr.i, and subversion/bindings/swig/swigutil_py.c
2. Add in win32.tar.gz These are the Win32 Project Files
for Python SWIG
3. Patch with diff.txt These are some enhancements by
Russell Yanofsky against a couple of things I overlooked, in addition to a
change to apr.i. There is also a change against cvs2svn.py, but that one
needs to be handled by Marco or whomever is in charge of it.
> Say, if you want to tackle the problem I just posted about in
> Subject: inconsistency in Python SWIG return parameters
> ...that would be a huge help. The basic problem is that
> conflict, new_rev = fs.commit_txn(txn)
> returns the wrong number of results when the commit is successful,
> because SWIG incorrectly omits the None value for conflict. There's a
> more detailed explanation in the above-mentioned email.
> That would be a patch I could (and would) review right away.
I'll start looking into this right now. Thanks a lot, Karl.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Feb 27 23:37:27 2003