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

Re: svn commit: r1660342 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:38:55 +0100

On 17.02.2015 12:16, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 17 February 2015 at 13:24, <stefan2_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: stefan2
>> Date: Tue Feb 17 10:24:09 2015
>> New Revision: 1660342
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1660342
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Refer to new backport branch for r1590751 and unblock
>> that entry.
>>
>> Modified:
>> subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS
>>
>> Modified: subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS?rev=1660342&r1=1660341&r2=1660342&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS (original)
>> +++ subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS Tue Feb 17 10:24:09 2015
>> @@ -133,6 +133,21 @@ Candidate changes:
>> Votes:
>> +1: rhuijben
>>
>> + * r1590751, r1660341
>> + Use empty, rather than NULL, config if default is unreadable.
>> + Justification:
>> + svn SEGV reported by user.
>> + Branch:
>> + ^/subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1590751
>> + Votes:
>> + +1 (without r1660341): philip, danielsh, rhuijben
>> + -0: julianfoad (prefer to fix all the programs at the same time;
>> + other queries -- see email thread)
>> + +1 (without r1660341): danielsh (julianf:
>> + I agree with your points on list, but +1ing anyway:
>> + fixing this segfault in svn need not block on fixing
>> + a similar segfault in svnadmin.)
>> +
>> Veto-blocked changes:
>> =====================
>>
>> @@ -162,20 +177,6 @@ Veto-blocked changes:
>> +1: rhuijben, stefan2
>> -1: julianfoad (assertion failure on incomplete dir -- see email)
>>
>> - * r1590751
>> - Use empty, rather than NULL, config if default is unreadable.
>> - Justification:
>> - svn SEGV reported by user.
>> - Votes:
>> - +1: philip, danielsh, rhuijben
>> - -0: julianfoad (prefer to fix all the programs at the same time;
>> - other queries -- see email thread)
>> - +1: danielsh (julianf: I agree with your points on list, but +1ing anyway:
>> - fixing this segfault in svn need not block on fixing
>> - a similar segfault in svnadmin.)
>> - -1: kotkov (breaks the build on Windows -- should use SVN_INT_ERR()
>> - instead of SVN_ERR())
> Stefan!
>
> Nevertheless that someone can consider this as a minor issue, you
> can't just go around removing people's votes. [1]
>
> You may resolve it, but you have to wait for person who raised the
> veto to withdrawn it once he review and test proposed solution. We
> already have discussed this in the past [2]
>
> [1] http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> [2] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2014-08/0090.shtml

Indeed. Faux pas there. Please keep the veto in until Evgeny decides to
change his vote.

-- Brane
Received on 2015-02-17 15:39:32 CET

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.