On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Stephen Butler <sbutler_at_elego.de> wrote:
> Quoting Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see, but geez why are you sending a patch? You are already
>>>>> working on a branch just commit it and point people at the commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this should all get on trunk -- today. There is no need
>>>>> for this to be on a branch at this point and if it was on trunk there
>>>>> are more of us that could test it and work with it. As an example, we
>>>>> have a Subclipse developer working on the graphical resolutions and
>>>>> running tree conflict scenarios regularly. He could use this fix now
>>>>> and start working on it and give feedback on bugs if he hits them.
>>>>> That is where the three example scripts I have originated (they all
>>>>> work now with this patch).
>>>>
>>>> +1 to moving this to trunk, especially if all the tests are passing.
>>>
>>> Your both right, I'll commit it to the branch then we'll take it from
>>> there.
>>
>> Done r35791
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I reviewed the patch. It looks great! +1 on merging to trunk.
I just synched the branch with trunk. I am running the tests now and
will merge back when done.
> Also, the changes you made recently to the test expectations look OK
> to me. Specifically, the following revisions:
>
> 35782
> 35779
> 35765
> 35758
> 35757
> 35738
> 35727
> 35726
Thanks, I particularly appreciate you taking a look at the tests -- it
lessens the chance of "Burba made all the tests pass by expecting the
wrong thing" :-P
Paul
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1134545
Received on 2009-02-10 16:18:14 CET