On 11/14/05, Mark Phippard <markp@softlanding.com> wrote:
> I guess from my point of view, my concern is that I would like to see this
> patch applied to 1.3.x so that it can be picked up in the next release
> candidate and we can have a better 1.3.x release of Subclipse.
That's fine, but considering that I can hardly even understand what
the patch does, I'm certainly not about to vote for it myself,
especially if the author of the patch hasn't even stepped up to say
"yes, I think this should be in 1.3.x" himself.
> I am not a C programmer but it doesn't seem to me that Patrick's change
> have introduced any new problems. The problems that you are concerned
> about would exist in the existing code as well. (wouldn't they?) So
> while I think it is good that you have potentially identified a problem
> scenario and are looking for an approach that will fix it, I would still
> like to see Patrick's patch applied to the branch.
Yes, it does seem like a step in the right direction, it's at the very
least better than it was, but I really don't understand this code well
enough to approve anything more than trivial changes to it, and this
is most certainly non-trivial stuff. Someone with some background in
the JavaHL code really needs to step up and say "this is good, for
this reason, so we should backport it" before I'll feel comfortable
about it.
> That being said, it was dlr that vetoed the patch so it could be that I am
> making an incorrect assumption in linking it to your email. I am still
> waiting to hear what dlr's reason was for the veto.
I believe DLR has changed his vote to a -0, as opposed to the previous -1.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 14 19:42:51 2005