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

Re: svn commit: r916089 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue-3242-partial: ./ CHANGES subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c subversion/libsvn_client/me

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:05:55 +0300

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM,  <cmpilato_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: cmpilato
>>> Date: Thu Feb 25 02:23:24 2010
>>> New Revision: 916089
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916089&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> On the '1.6.x-issue-3242-partial' branch, merge (with heavy conflict
>>> resolution) r879762, r880472, and r880579 from old 'issue-3242-dev'
>>> branch (which see for log message information).
>>>
>>> These changes represent a subset of the changes I made on that branch
>>> for issue 3242.  Specifically, these changes cause the
>>> mergeinfo-querying helper functions to not forcibly operate against
>>> the repository root URL, but to operate instead against the RA
>>> session's current URL (which is generally going to be something that
>>> is readable by the accessing user).
>>>
>> Wow, Michael you are reading my mind! I've started backporting
>> issue-3242 fix just yesterday evening :) Thanks!
>
> If you want to see the rest of the backport through to completion, that's
> great.  But I don't know that you'll get the most bang for the buck
> backporting my "let's rework the entirety of the copy code" stuff.  I'd
> rather you focus your effort on reviewing the backport proposal as it
> stands. :-)
>
>
I reviewed it and wondered why you didn't backport unit test?

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
Received on 2010-02-26 22:06:33 CET

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