> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org]
> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 11:11
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org; commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org]
> >> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 1:11
> >> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Cc: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in
> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h
> >>
> >> I understand the desire to get the buildbots green again, and I'm
> >> sorry these revisions which I committed broke the bots, but a little
> >> patience might have been useful here. We have a long tradition of
> >> allowing folks to attempt to fix problems, rather than reverting their
> >> commits without consultation. I kinda wish you'd have given me
> >> another 12 hours to attempt to fix it, rather than reverting.
> >
> > We also have the generic rule that any committer (full or partial) may
> > revert something that makes it impossible for them to do further
> > development. (See hacking)
>
> No, we have a policy that people can revert changes to the *build
> system* which prevent productivity:
> "To prevent loss of productivity, any committer (full or partial) can
> immediately revert any build system change that breaks their ability
> to effectively do development on their platform of choice, as a matter
> of ordinary routing, without fear of accusations of an over-reaction."
> (From: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-
> guide/building.html#configury
> )
>
> I'm not trying to play process obstructionist, just noting that a mail
> mentioning the breakage and indicating your intent to revert would
> have been a nice consideration.
>
> > And tomorrow morning the asf repository will be readonly for quite some
> > time, so waiting till after that will probably cause more delays.
> >
> > Besides, you just mailed that you weren't going to fix this issue... :-)
>
> I guess I should have been more clear: I'm happy to fix my own
> breakage to the buildbots. When indicating I was moving on to other
> things, I didn't know I'd broken the test world.
>
> > Somehow the test that should have picked up the original failure is
broken.
> > It thinks that no output at all for a recursive proplist is ok.
> >
> > So two different bugs (the local changes one; and the base-deleted one)
> > together kept the prop_tests.py 15 test succeeding.
>
> Has this bug in the test suite been fixed? If not, I suppose that's a
> place to start...
r1104641 fixes the test suite
And r1104631, probably fixes most of the other problems of the patch.
(Except for the performance regression of single node property reads, such
as used by the merge code)
Bert
Received on 2011-05-18 11:14:58 CEST