Re: svn commit: r1104367 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS

On 05/17/2011 06:09 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> 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 (update_tests.py 53), but that's because of out-of-date expectations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.)
> ]]]

The relevant test aren't in 1.6.x right now, and I'm not so concerned with
proposing that they be backported.

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