Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 23:37:40 +0300:
> On 13 May 2015 at 23:31, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ivan_at_apache.org [mailto:ivan_at_apache.org]
> >> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
> >> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> >> Author: ivan
> >> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
> >> New Revision: 1679230
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
> >> Log:
> >> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
> >> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> >> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
> > Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
> > Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
> I didn't have reasons against backporting it. I just wanted save
> Daniel time to vote again because of this minor test improvement. Feel
> free to add these commits to backport nomination and extend my vote
> for them.
Thanks, but I don't understand why my availability is a consideration in
the backport decision. If the patch needs to be backported and I didn't
have time to review it, someone else would have (and even if no one did,
we would yet have had the STATUS entry as a visible reminder of the task
that is yet to be done).
I went ahead and nominated both patches in a separate group, so those
who reviewed the fix itself don't have to review the test fixes too.
(That group is already approved, actually, as it needs just two votes.)
Received on 2015-05-14 16:52:14 CEST