2008-10-18 16:13:34 Mark Phippard napisał(a):
> I did not get the impression the bug was THAT bad. It sounds like you
> are going by the wording of the backport proposal which makes it sound
> like merge is completely broken. I am not against a 1.5.4 but I'd
> like to hear from Paul. Perhaps we ought to just move up the 1.5.4
> schedule so that it happens in early November?
+1 for tagging 1.5.4 circa 2008-11-10.
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > (Changing the subject line.)
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 05:54 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >> Greg Stein wrote:
> >> > Should we yank 1.5.3 and publish a 1.5.4 right away?
> >> >
> >> > If this is a regression, then it seems we ought to pop out a 1.5.4 right away.
> >>
> >> Fine by me, if others feel that we need to. (Don't stay silent on this, people,
> >> I'd like a few +1's before going through the effort here.)
> >>
> >> -Hyrum
> >
> > >From the 1.5.x STATUS file:
> >> * r33693
> >> Fix merge bug introduced in the backport of the r29969, r32463, r33013,
> >> r33016, r33022, r33112 group in 1.5.3.
> >> Notes:
> >> There is a minor whitespace conflict in merge.c.
> >> Justification:
> >> This bug is a regression in 1.5.3, breaks mergeinfo aware merges when
> >> ecountered, and has already been seen a couple times in our own repos,
> >> see http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&&msgNo=144187
> >> and http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3294#desc1.
> >> Votes:
> >> +1: pburba
> >>
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Received on 2008-10-19 03:02:48 CEST