"David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
> This is fixed on trunk and nominated for backport to 1.5.x. We're
> currently debating whether it really needs to make it into 1.5.0.
>
> Given that this is the second or third independent report of this bug,
> I'm starting to lean a whole lot towards putting it in 1.5.0. What is
> the point of having release candidates if we don't fix the most
> reported bug?
Well, the point is also to know what we're sending out there, so we can
document known problems, be prepared for certain feedback, etc. Of
course, getting the fix in is the ultimate goal. But is it worth
extending the soak? I'm not so sure.
I'd also like to know whether Bert's recipe was derived from something a
client (like Ankh or TSVN) did. If so, the workaround is for the client
to protect against using --depth=empty on a file, which is what TSVN has
done now IIRC. If the common clients do that, the bug is likely to hit
a lot fewer users for the short time that it's out there.
Bert, did this really come from command-line usage?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-03 16:25:49 CEST