[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: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:34:14 -0500

Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> 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?

Because it doesn't pass. :-)

The unit test is a multi-stage test. The bit I backported makes the first
stage start working, but subsequent stages still fail. It'd be easy enough
to add a partial test, though.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2010-02-26 22:34:51 CET

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