You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com> on 2010/02/25 07:44:24 UTC
Re: svn commit: r916089 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue-3242-partial:
./ CHANGES subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c
subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c
subversion/libsvn_client/me
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM, <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: cmpilato
> Date: Thu Feb 25 02:23:24 2010
> New Revision: 916089
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916089&view=rev
> Log:
> On the '1.6.x-issue-3242-partial' branch, merge (with heavy conflict
> resolution) r879762, r880472, and r880579 from old 'issue-3242-dev'
> branch (which see for log message information).
>
> These changes represent a subset of the changes I made on that branch
> for issue 3242. Specifically, these changes cause the
> mergeinfo-querying helper functions to not forcibly operate against
> the repository root URL, but to operate instead against the RA
> session's current URL (which is generally going to be something that
> is readable by the accessing user).
>
Wow, Michael you are reading my mind! I've started backporting
issue-3242 fix just yesterday evening :) Thanks!
--
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
Re: svn commit: r916089 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue-3242-partial:
./ CHANGES subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c
subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c subversion/libsvn_client/me
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM, <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Author: cmpilato
>>>> Date: Thu Feb 25 02:23:24 2010
>>>> New Revision: 916089
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916089&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> On the '1.6.x-issue-3242-partial' branch, merge (with heavy conflict
>>>> resolution) r879762, r880472, and r880579 from old 'issue-3242-dev'
>>>> branch (which see for log message information).
>>>>
>>>> These changes represent a subset of the changes I made on that branch
>>>> for issue 3242. Specifically, these changes cause the
>>>> mergeinfo-querying helper functions to not forcibly operate against
>>>> the repository root URL, but to operate instead against the RA
>>>> session's current URL (which is generally going to be something that
>>>> is readable by the accessing user).
>>>>
>>> Wow, Michael you are reading my mind! I've started backporting
>>> issue-3242 fix just yesterday evening :) Thanks!
>> If you want to see the rest of the backport through to completion, that's
>> great. But I don't know that you'll get the most bang for the buck
>> backporting my "let's rework the entirety of the copy code" stuff. I'd
>> rather you focus your effort on reviewing the backport proposal as it
>> stands. :-)
>>
>>
> I reviewed it and wondered why you didn't backport unit test?
Because it doesn't pass. :-)
The unit test is a multi-stage test. The bit I backported makes the first
stage start working, but subsequent stages still fail. It'd be easy enough
to add a partial test, though.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r916089 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue-3242-partial:
./ CHANGES subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c
subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c
subversion/libsvn_client/me
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM, <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: cmpilato
>>> Date: Thu Feb 25 02:23:24 2010
>>> New Revision: 916089
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916089&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> On the '1.6.x-issue-3242-partial' branch, merge (with heavy conflict
>>> resolution) r879762, r880472, and r880579 from old 'issue-3242-dev'
>>> branch (which see for log message information).
>>>
>>> These changes represent a subset of the changes I made on that branch
>>> for issue 3242. Specifically, these changes cause the
>>> mergeinfo-querying helper functions to not forcibly operate against
>>> the repository root URL, but to operate instead against the RA
>>> session's current URL (which is generally going to be something that
>>> is readable by the accessing user).
>>>
>> Wow, Michael you are reading my mind! I've started backporting
>> issue-3242 fix just yesterday evening :) Thanks!
>
> If you want to see the rest of the backport through to completion, that's
> great. But I don't know that you'll get the most bang for the buck
> backporting my "let's rework the entirety of the copy code" stuff. I'd
> rather you focus your effort on reviewing the backport proposal as it
> stands. :-)
>
>
I reviewed it and wondered why you didn't backport unit test?
--
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
Re: svn commit: r916089 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue-3242-partial:
./ CHANGES subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c
subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c subversion/libsvn_client/me
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM, <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: cmpilato
>> Date: Thu Feb 25 02:23:24 2010
>> New Revision: 916089
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916089&view=rev
>> Log:
>> On the '1.6.x-issue-3242-partial' branch, merge (with heavy conflict
>> resolution) r879762, r880472, and r880579 from old 'issue-3242-dev'
>> branch (which see for log message information).
>>
>> These changes represent a subset of the changes I made on that branch
>> for issue 3242. Specifically, these changes cause the
>> mergeinfo-querying helper functions to not forcibly operate against
>> the repository root URL, but to operate instead against the RA
>> session's current URL (which is generally going to be something that
>> is readable by the accessing user).
>>
> Wow, Michael you are reading my mind! I've started backporting
> issue-3242 fix just yesterday evening :) Thanks!
If you want to see the rest of the backport through to completion, that's
great. But I don't know that you'll get the most bang for the buck
backporting my "let's rework the entirety of the copy code" stuff. I'd
rather you focus your effort on reviewing the backport proposal as it
stands. :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand