Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 5:31 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> glasser@tigris.org wrote:
>>> Author: glasser
>>> Date: Mon Nov 26 11:47:33 2007
>>> New Revision: 28034
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> STATUS: Note that an approved revision conflicts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> branches/1.4.x/STATUS
>>>
>>> Modified: branches/1.4.x/STATUS
>>> URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.4.x/STATUS?pathrev=28034&r1=28033&r2=28034
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- branches/1.4.x/STATUS (original)
>>> +++ branches/1.4.x/STATUS Mon Nov 26 11:47:33 2007
>>> @@ -137,5 +137,8 @@
>>> Justification:
>>> WC library bug fix.
>>> Branch: TBD
>>> + Notes:
>>> + glasser tried to merge this but it really conflicts. Can one of
>>> + the people who voted for it merge it?
>>> Votes:
>>> +1: dionisos, dlr, hwright
>>>
>> A bit of investigation reveals this change to be dependent on r21596,
>> which fixes part of issue 2530. We could try to resolve the conflict in
>> the standard way (i.e., a conflict branch) or we could propose r21596
>> for backport and make r25833 conditional upon its successful merge.
>>
>> A cursory review of r21596 leads me to think that it would be a valid
>> candidate for backport. Garrett, does this sound right?
>
> Yeah, it seems (at first glance, I haven't actually tried to merge it
> or anything) like it should be a reasonable backport candidate.
r21596 claims to fix part of issue #2530, but that issue isn't closed.
The comments on the issue lead me to believe there may still be some
weirdness, so I haven't nominated it for backport.
I have created the 1.4.x-r25833 branch, and backported the relevant bits
of r21596. It passes all tests on 1.4.x for me.
-Hyrum
Received on Tue Nov 27 05:08:11 2007