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

Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509: subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/ subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/ subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:56:07 +0400

On 11 August 2014 03:54, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2014 22:26, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan_at_apache.org wrote:
> Author: ivan
> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
> New Revision: 1617088
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
> Log:
> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
> -1
> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and
> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!)
> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
> Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing
> Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but
> current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose
> of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
> This was not a veto. It was a request, and I said plainly why I made it.

> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
> I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll
> have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in
> situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben.
> Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my
> commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of
> course.
> Ben already said why he didn't want to have a special display function
> private to the x509 parser. Once again, your only counter-argument is "code
> churn" and, once again, you're ignoring other people's arguments because you
> don't like them.
> Please stop doing that. It's not productive.
I didn't ignore Ben's arguments: I addressed them by making public
function for formatting cert fingerprints.

Anyway, I got your point that it's bad to change branch when it's in
review/vote stage. So I've reverted all my branch changes in r1617225.
I'll wait until Ben resolve my concerns about branch raised on [VOTE]

Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2014-08-11 11:56:54 CEST

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.