Re: 1.5.5 this week?

Paul Burba wrote on Fri, 5 Dec 2008 at 10:48 -0500:
> Regarding the backported changes:
>
...
> r34570: Always passing 'svn_depth_infinity' to svn_wc_ensure_adm3() is
> what svn_wc_add2() now does on trunk, so that looks correct, +1.
>

Good point.

> r33788: +1
>
> r33974: Is there a reason we cannot backport the changes to
> merge_tests.py and update_tests.py? This is the only choice I don't
> understand.
>

No particular reason; I simply tried to merge the minimal set of
changes that makes everything pass, and these weren't necessary. Feel
free to add them to STATUS (with my +1) if you want to see them too.

> Ran the [RA_LOCAL | RA_SVN] x [FSFS] tests on this branch, everything passes.
>

ra_local / fsfs passes here (after r34572).

> Nice use of the file target merges on the partial merges in
> r34570-34571 BTW, it warms my cold heart to see that :-)
>

Great. :) I actually wasn't sure whether (mergeinfo-wise) it would be
better to specify adm_ops.c or libsvn_wc as the merge target, eventually I
chose the former.

> Paul

I'll nominate the branch for backport now.

Daniel

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=980182
Received on 2008-12-08 10:41:08 CET