On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> 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.
Ok, that seems reasonable.
>> 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.
I added my vote for this, thanks again.
Paul
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=980192
Received on 2008-12-08 10:41:20 CET