You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> on 2002/07/15 21:32:15 UTC
alpha and libsvn_wc churn
sussman@tigris.org writes:
> Author: sussman
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:09:46 -0500
> New Revision: 2524
>
> Reverting all of the issue #749 changes (the libsvn_wc access-baton
> rewrite stuff.)
Shockingly, this was a trivial reversion. I got only one (C)onflicted
file, and it was just in some header-file definitions. Then I
compiled and passed 'make check' without a single hitch.
So here are two possible paths to take:
1. leave out the libsvn_wc access-baton stuff, and try to release
Alpha on Thursday.
2. put the access-baton stuff back in, and try to release sometime
next week, hopefully Monday.
If we decide to go with option #1, then by all means, we should just
copy the HEAD of /trunk to a branch, and then revert r2524 on the
branch, so you guys can keep debugging access-batons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: alpha and libsvn_wc churn
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 04:32:15PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> sussman@tigris.org writes:
> > Author: sussman
> > Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:09:46 -0500
> > New Revision: 2524
> >
> > Reverting all of the issue #749 changes (the libsvn_wc access-baton
> > rewrite stuff.)
>
> Shockingly, this was a trivial reversion. I got only one (C)onflicted
> file, and it was just in some header-file definitions. Then I
> compiled and passed 'make check' without a single hitch.
If you and Philip are comfortable that this was a successful reversion, then
let's go with it. Philip?
> So here are two possible paths to take:
>
> 1. leave out the libsvn_wc access-baton stuff, and try to release
> Alpha on Thursday.
Let's do this one, provided Philip feels we backed out "enough" and
properly.
> 2. put the access-baton stuff back in, and try to release sometime
> next week, hopefully Monday.
>
> If we decide to go with option #1, then by all means, we should just
> copy the HEAD of /trunk to a branch, and then revert r2524 on the
> branch, so you guys can keep debugging access-batons.
No need to revert your 2524. Just copy 2523 (as Philip suggested).
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org