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

Re: svn commit: r18231 - branches/1.3.x

From: Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com>
Date: 2006-01-25 22:40:52 CET

David James wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote:
>
>>djames@tigris.org wrote:
>>
>>>Author: djames
>>>Date: Wed Jan 25 14:09:41 2006
>>>New Revision: 18231
>>>
>>>Modified:
>>> branches/1.3.x/STATUS
>>>
>>>Log:
>>>* STATUS: Nominate and vote for r18230. Vote +1 (concept) on r18215, noting
>>> that r18215 needs a merge branch to resolve conflicts.
>>
>>Do we have a policy on how much of a conflict is required before using a merge
>>branch?
>>
>>This commit was trivial (2 lines in configure.in) and could be done by hand in
>>the 1.3.x branch to resolve it. In fact, the easy was would be to do the merge,
>>revert configure.in and make the change by hand.
>>
>>Maybe using a branch isn't a bad idea :)
>
>
> I looked at r18215, and I didn't find it was immediately obvious how
> to merge it to the 1.3.x branch. For this reason, I'd like to see a
> merge branch before I can approve the change.

When I did the merge, I was surprised to see how and what was marked as a conflict.

But look at the original commit and you'll see it's a trivial two lines and
could be applied by hand.

Regards,
Blair

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 25 22:41:35 2006

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