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

Re: svn commit: r1697390 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:41:16 +0200

On 24.08.2015 15:32, stefan2_at_apache.org wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> New Revision: 1697390
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697390
> Log:
> * STATUS: Add svnfsfs load-index fixes (r1697381, r1697384, r1697387).
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1697390&r1=1697389&r2=1697390&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> @@ -129,6 +129,15 @@ Candidate changes:
> Votes:
> +1: rhuijben
>
> + * r1697381, r1697384, r1697387
> + Make 'svnfsfs load-index' work as advertised in the documentation
> + Justification:
> + svnfsfs load-index would only ever be used in high-stress situations
> + like desaster recovery. So, while workarounds are possible, having
> + people jump though a few extra hoops is a bad thing in that context.
> + Votes:
> + +1: stefan2
> +

I have to admit that I don't have a clue what this backport proposal is
about. What doesn't work as advertised? What kind of workarounds are we
talking about?

According to the log messages of these three revisions, it would appear
that they're three (unrelated?) bug fixes in svnfsfs. However, I can't
find any test cases that would help me verify that the fixes actually
perform as advertised.

In other words, I've no idea how to vote for this backport.

-- Brane
Received on 2015-08-25 16:48:29 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.