[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: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:00:04 +0100

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> 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]
>

Sorry about that! Bad commit day :/

After the backport branch mess this morning, I refrained from making
any further commits today.

-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2015-02-17 18:00:31 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.