Re: svn commit: r1104367 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
Shouldn't you include in the backport nomination the "subsequent
revision" mention in r1104309's log message?
NOTE: There is a remaining 3525-related test that is still failing
(update_tests.py 53), but that's because of out-of-date expectations
in the WC-NG world. (That will be fixed in a subsequent revision.)
cmpilato_at_apache.org wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 16:06:00 -0000:
> Author: cmpilato
> Date: Tue May 17 16:06:00 2011
> New Revision: 1104367
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1104367&view=rev
> * STATUS: Propose r1104309 for backport.
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=1104367&r1=1104366&r2=1104367&view=diff
> --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Tue May 17 16:06:00 2011
> @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ Candidate changes:
> +1: pburba, stsp
> + * r1104309
> + Fix issue #3525 ("Locked file which is scheduled for delete causes
> + tree conflict") and issue #3471 ("svn up touches file w/ lock &
> + svn:keywords property").
> + Justification:
> + Tree conflicts are frustrating enough without flagging false ones.
> + Branch:
> + ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r1104309
> + Votes:
> + +1: cmpilato
> Veto-blocked changes:
Received on 2011-05-17 18:10:31 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev