kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>> r17484 was committed on the bdb-fixes branch, not on trunk. r18144 is
>> the merge from that branch to trunk, so it includes this change.
>>
>
> Next time I should look at 'log -v' output. Sorry about that.
>
>
>> When I originally proposed r18254 for 1.3.1, I got the language about
>> backport dependencies backwards (as maxb correctly pointed out on IRC
>> last night).
>>
>>
>>> Below is the r18254 backport I would have committed to 1.3.x if I were
>>> confident it was appropriate (yes, it builds without error):
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, this patch is correct. Committing this to 1.3.x first will cause
>> a minor conflict when r18144 and friends get merged, but it has an
>> obvious resolution.
>>
>> I'd rather wait with this until the BDB fixes are merged, though,
>> because this macro won't be used otherwise.
>>
>
> Well, the BDB fixes name r18254 as a prereq, so I thought I'd merge
> that first (since it's already approved), *then* merge the rest of the
> changes and review/vote.
>
> Would you rather I didn't do things in that order?
>
I did say I got the dependencies inside-out when I wrote the STATUS
entries. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 1 18:38:31 2006