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

Re: Justifications for porting to 1.0.x, and meaning of "sandbox" [Re: svn commit: r8974 - branches/1.0.x]

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: 2004-03-11 02:44:04 CET

Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:17:56PM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
>
>>breser@tigris.org wrote:
>>
>>>+ * r8969
>>>+ Do not copy doc/book/book/images into sandbox.
>>>+ Justification: We end up with duplicate images dir and the files are
>>>+ already there.
>>
>>That's a fine description of the bug but not a justification of why this
[...]
>
> Okay updating to make it clearer.

Thanks.

>>By the way, what I understand by the word "sandbox" is a place for playing
[...]
>
> I'm just using the terminology used in the script. The directory that
> ends up in the tarball is built in .dist_sandbox. Which after the
> tarballs are made is competely removed.

Oh, good - so what I thought it meant is the same as what other people think. That's nice to know.

>>>+ * Issue #1775
>>>+ Allow reverting a replaced file with no properties.
>>>+ Justification: It's a bug.
>>
>>Again, is it a bug with significant consequences or a simple and safe fix?
>
> Results in a somewhat wedged working copy. The fix is straightforward.
> We tested to see if a file existed. But didn't bother to check the
> results of the test. The fix simply looks at the result of the test and
> behaves the same way as we do in other cases. I'll update the STATUS
> file on this too.

Thanks, Ben.

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 11 02:43:27 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.