Re: Issue 4359 fix not merged to 1.8.x

I think adding a check like that would be good.

I just want to know what did everybody review ;)

Blair

On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:06 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:

> Should backport.pl attempt to catch such a situation?
>
> I'm inclined to say "No", since the entry should not have been moved
> below the "Approved" header and given three +1 votes if it had a revnum
> typo. (But it should be easy to inject an 'svn log -qvr | wc -l > 4' type
> check, if people prefer that.)
>
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 09:02:14 +0100:
>> Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> writes:
>>
>>> It looks like the wrong revision number was given in STATUS, as it's a
>>> tomcat commit:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1471029
>>
>> r1471028 is the revision that should have been proposed/voted/merged.
>>
>> --
>> Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
>> http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
>
Received on 2013-04-24 15:33:31 CEST