On Thu, 2009-09-24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 04:40:38PM -0700, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Author: julianfoad
> > Date: Wed Sep 23 16:40:38 2009
> > New Revision: 39549
> >
> > Log:
> > * STATUS
> > (r38000 group): Mention a revision that's in the 1.6.x-r38000 branch but
> > wasn't listed here.
>
> It is listed:
>
> > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ Candidate changes:
> > r38099, r38100, r38803, r39000, r39002, r39007, r39052
> > Eliminate duplicate notifications and improve error messages:
> > r38831, r38896, r38907, r39008, r39096, r39124, r39125, r39127
> ^^^^^^
> > + Remove a redundant check:
> > + r38831
Heh, you're right. Only because you added it since the base revision I
was working with. After preparing my change (which added it in the list
of rev numbers at the beginning of the entry, too) I did an "svn up"
which merged some changes in but produced no conflicts, so I thought I
was safe to commit. I was wrong!
It's a real-world example of a semantic conflict that the default text
merge algorithm doesn't see as a conflict. I'll fix.
- Julian
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2399109
Received on 2009-09-24 02:16:25 CEST