On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>>> number next week.
>>>>
>>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>>> it does not have to?
>>>
>>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>>
>>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>>
>>>> If I can merge these
>>>
>>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>>
>> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
>> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
>> 1.5.1.
>
> +1
>
>>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>>
>>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>>> will help.
>>
>> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
>> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
>> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
>
> If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
> of wisdom please raise your hand!
>
> In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
> order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
The #3157 and #3199 groups were backported today.
I created backport branches for the #3174 and #3067 groups at:
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3174
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3067
Hopefully this will lower the bar for review a bit.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-15 03:39:42 CEST