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

Re: #3641 vetoed

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:09:14 +0000

Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:

> Philip,
>
> You vetoed the r962377 group since descend_into_replace() is XFail.
>
> I've un-xfailed that test in these commits:
> 3485 * 11Jan26,02:35 danielsh_at_apache.o (2.5K) svn commit: r1063572 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/
> 3486 * 11Jan26,02:39 danielsh_at_apache.o (2.2K) svn commit: r1063573 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos/replay.c
> 3489 * 11Jan26,03:32 danielsh_at_apache.o (1.0K) svn commit: r1063592 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnsync_tests.py
>
> Does your veto stand?

My veto for r962377+r962378 was based on the test showing that the
implementation was not correct. Are you proposing to merge those 3
revisions as well and make the test PASS? 

-- 
Philip
Received on 2011-02-16 12:10:18 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.