Re: svn commit: r29129 - branches/1.5.x
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>> Have we been consistent about using svnmerge.py since this?
> Methinks yes. (Though I haven't audited the log to find out.)
>> Has anyone done the --record-only equivalent to the branch yet for the
>> few changes before this?
> /trunk:1-29080,29085-29089,29095-29098,29100-29105,29107,29111 are
> listed as having been merged prior to the addition of svnmerge.py tracking.
> From the logs, it looks like r29094, r29099, and r29114 were merged
> before we initialized, and haven't been recorded yet.
r29249 records these on 1.5.x.
Received on 2008-02-08 23:15:02 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev