Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 4/25/06, bojan@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: bojan
> Date: Tue Apr 25 01:31:58 2006
> New Revision: 396812
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=396812&view=rev
> Log:
> Check bad transaction state in dbd_pgsql_pquery()/dbd_pgsql_pselect()

Bojan, if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
vice-versa for that matter) please mention that in the commit log, so
people know that's what's happening.  If you don't mention that it's a
merge, my immediate response to a commit to a branch is to think "why
is this being committed on the branch instead of to trunk?", which of
course is wrong in this case since it was committed on the trunk
first, but nothing in this commit tells me that.

-garrett

Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

[Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>]

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 07:58 -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:

> Bojan, if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
> vice-versa for that matter) please mention that in the commit log, so
> people know that's what's happening.  If you don't mention that it's a
> merge, my immediate response to a commit to a branch is to think "why
> is this being committed on the branch instead of to trunk?", which of
> course is wrong in this case since it was committed on the trunk
> first, but nothing in this commit tells me that.

Ah, sorry. I should have paid better attention to backport commits. My
bad :-(

I'll be sure to remember this for next time.

-- 
Bojan

Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

On 04/25/2006 04:58 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:

> 
> Bojan, if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
> vice-versa for that matter) please mention that in the commit log, so
> people know that's what's happening.  If you don't mention that it's a

I think

http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge

is very helpful for backporting as it also adds a proper comment. Thanks
to Joe Orton for this script.



Regards

Rüdiger

Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 07:58 -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> 
>>if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
>>vice-versa for that matter)
> 
> Just occurred to me - if there is a backport from the trunk to a branch
> that isn't a straight merge (i.e. the patch needs adjusting in order to
> work), do I still comment it as "Merge revision...", or do I comment is
> as "Backport such and such fix from trunk"?

It's nice to comment 'rework commit 395999 from trunk to apply clean.'
It helps to track providence.

Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 4/25/06, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 07:58 -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
> > vice-versa for that matter)
>
> Just occurred to me - if there is a backport from the trunk to a branch
> that isn't a straight merge (i.e. the patch needs adjusting in order to
> work), do I still comment it as "Merge revision...", or do I comment is
> as "Backport such and such fix from trunk"?
>
> I happen to have one such thing I'd like to commit (SQLite3 query BUSY
> wait fix) and I don't want to stuff up the comments on that one...

I usually note that it's a merge, and that some tweaks were needed to
make it apply to the branch.  If there are a lot of changes needed to
make it apply then obviously you'd want to go more in depth in
describing them.

-garrett

Re: svn commit: r396812 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/dbd/apr_dbd_pgsql.c

[Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>]

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 07:58 -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> if you're merging a revision from trunk to a branch (or
> vice-versa for that matter)

Just occurred to me - if there is a backport from the trunk to a branch
that isn't a straight merge (i.e. the patch needs adjusting in order to
work), do I still comment it as "Merge revision...", or do I comment is
as "Backport such and such fix from trunk"?

I happen to have one such thing I'd like to commit (SQLite3 query BUSY
wait fix) and I don't want to stuff up the comments on that one...

-- 
Bojan