[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)

From: Mark Eichin <eichin_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:58:48 -0500

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>> week?
>>>>> 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:
>>>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>>>> 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
>> triage...)
> 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.

Thank you! Will do.

> -Hyrum

_Mark_ <eichin_at_thok.org> <eichin_at_gmail.com>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-04 23:59:10 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.