Re: svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
On 14 May 2015 at 17:51, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> 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).
Sure. I just didn't see enough reasons to backport this fix, but it
*could be* backported
> 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 2015-05-15 13:34:09 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev