Mark Eichin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>>>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>>>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
>>> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
>>> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
>>> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
>>> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>>> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
>>> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
>>> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
>>> they see the problem too...)
>> You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
>> isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
>> review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
>> branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
> Correct - it's not on trunk, and noone's apparently found the time to
> even run the reproduction test script.
>> However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
>> branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
>> for things to settle down and then poke people again.
> Ah, I hadn't realized this project didn't do "bugs before features".
> Also, I figured that if the branch date was moving because
> merge-related tests were failing on trunk anyway, that whoever was
> working on that would probably be looking at the relevant code anyway,
> so it might be a good time to get it reviewed (or at least looked at
> enough to make a ticket out of it, I haven't even seen that much
Using your script, I can reproduce the problem using trunk, so I'd say go ahead
and file an issue, marking it 1.6-consider.
Received on 2008-11-04 23:42:39 CET