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

Re: svn commit: r17849 - branches/1.3.x

From: Kouhei Sutou <kou_at_cozmixng.org>
Date: 2005-12-19 17:02:05 CET

In <200512191649.jBJGnru32661@morbius.ch.collab.net>
  "svn commit: r17849 - branches/1.3.x" on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:49:53 -0600,
  kou@tigris.org wrote:

> Author: kou
> Date: Mon Dec 19 10:49:52 2005
> New Revision: 17849
>
> Modified:
> branches/1.3.x/STATUS
>
> Log:
> * STATUS: Nominate r17795 and r17811.

I have two concens.

1. Should I nominate this into 1.3.1 section?

2. This revision causes conflict:

  <<<<<<< .working
  void svn_swig_rb_nls_initialize(void);
  =======
  typedef struct apr_pool_wrapper_t
  {
    apr_pool_t *pool;
    svn_boolean_t destroyed;
    struct apr_pool_wrapper_t *parent;
    apr_array_header_t *children;
  } apr_pool_wrapper_t;

  void svn_swig_rb_initialize(void);
>>>>>>> .merge-right.r17795

This conflict can be resolved by just removing conflict mark
line:

  void svn_swig_rb_nls_initialize(void);
  typedef struct apr_pool_wrapper_t
  {
    apr_pool_t *pool;
    svn_boolean_t destroyed;
    struct apr_pool_wrapper_t *parent;
    apr_array_header_t *children;
  } apr_pool_wrapper_t;

  void svn_swig_rb_initialize(void);

Should I make a branch for this merge?

Regards,

--
kou
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 19 17:08:02 2005

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