You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de> on 2003/12/16 06:00:47 UTC
Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Hallo everbody,
I am sorry, but I would like to have 3 recent patches added to the
0.35.0 and 1.0 branches. All patches are local to the javahl bindings. I
have not field issues yet.
r8009
A recent change in svn_auth_ssl_server_trust_prompt_func_t made the
javahl binding uncompilable. This changes my implmentation of that
function type.
r8010
I have found a crash in the javahl module, which happened because I
was passing native path styles into the svn_client_* functions.
r8011
A small addition the README file, which is important for building
javahl on MacOS X.
How should I proceed?
Regards,
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 05:02, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > I thought Karl was urging us to wait until Friday before voting. FWIW, I
> > +1
> > r8009 as well.
>
> He did, but we can't include this in 0.35.0 if we vote after the
> release....
Aha! Missed that. Thanks Erik.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <e....@gmx.net>.
> I thought Karl was urging us to wait until Friday before voting. FWIW, I
> +1
> r8009 as well.
He did, but we can't include this in 0.35.0 if we vote after the release....
bye,
Erik.
--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 15:19, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net> writes:
> > I thought Karl was urging us to wait until Friday before voting. FWIW, I
> > +1 r8009 as well.
>
> Yes, in general. The current time is a bit slippery because it's
> about both the 0.35.0 release and the 1.0 release. Even if 1.0 were
> not coming soon, though, these changes would have been appropriate for
> any interim release that was still in its "soak" period, that's why I
> +1'd them. And, after all, they are crash fixes :-).
Sorry, I wasn't questioning your judgement... after all, I gave it a +1 as
well. I thought you were seeking some sort of coordination on our part to
make it easier to count votes, or something along those lines. I didn't
realize that there was a seperate vote going on already for 0.35.0 stuff.
Thanks for the clarification though.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net> writes:
> I thought Karl was urging us to wait until Friday before voting. FWIW, I +1
> r8009 as well.
Yes, in general. The current time is a bit slippery because it's
about both the 0.35.0 release and the 1.0 release. Even if 1.0 were
not coming soon, though, these changes would have been appropriate for
any interim release that was still in its "soak" period, that's why I
+1'd them. And, after all, they are crash fixes :-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 03:29, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When looking at the posts on this threads, I see that this is the status
> so far about commiting the changes:
>
> r8009 +1 kfogel
> 0
> -1
> r8010 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> 0
> -1
> r8011 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> 0
> -1
>
> About r8009:
> I'm +1 on it (but that don't count as my commit access are partial). So
> If we applies the 1.0 release rules on 0.35.0 (which posting on this
> thread suggests) then r8009 will not be merged.
> One thing to notice is that all of you are talking about r8009 issues,
> but only Karl votes. May I have your votes for r8009 please? :-)
>
> I will hold the merge for r8010 and r8011 until my evening (CET) and see
> if r8009 get some more votes or not (I have a feeling that r8009 just
> slipped away) :-)
I thought Karl was urging us to wait until Friday before voting. FWIW, I +1
r8009 as well.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <e....@gmx.net>.
> Hi Jostein,
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >When looking at the posts on this threads, I see that this is the status
> >so far about commiting the changes:
> >
> >r8009 +1 kfogel
> > 0
> > -1
> >r8010 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> > 0
> > -1
> >r8011 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> > 0
> > -1
> >
> >About r8009:
> >I'm +1 on it (but that don't count as my commit access are partial). So
> >If we applies the 1.0 release rules on 0.35.0 (which posting on this
> >thread suggests) then r8009 will not be merged.
> >One thing to notice is that all of you are talking about r8009 issues,
> >but only Karl votes. May I have your votes for r8009 please? :-)
> >
> >
> Without 8009, you can forget about javahl, because it will not compile.
Yeah, sorry for the confusion, I'm +1 on on too, but I meant to raise the
question whether it was a solution to something already in the 0.35.0 branch.
It has been confirmed to be.
r8009 +1 kfogel dionisos
0
-1
r8010 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
0
-1
r8011 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
0
-1
bye,
Erik.
--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 09.40, Patrick Mayweg wrote:
> Without 8009, you can forget about javahl, because it will not
> compile.
hrmf.. Then I can assume that I have 3 x +1s on all of them, right?
A commit to the release branch is on the way soon..
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de>.
Hi Jostein,
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When looking at the posts on this threads, I see that this is the status
>so far about commiting the changes:
>
>r8009 +1 kfogel
> 0
> -1
>r8010 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> 0
> -1
>r8011 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
> 0
> -1
>
>About r8009:
>I'm +1 on it (but that don't count as my commit access are partial). So
>If we applies the 1.0 release rules on 0.35.0 (which posting on this
>thread suggests) then r8009 will not be merged.
>One thing to notice is that all of you are talking about r8009 issues,
>but only Karl votes. May I have your votes for r8009 please? :-)
>
>
Without 8009, you can forget about javahl, because it will not compile.
>I will hold the merge for r8010 and r8011 until my evening (CET) and see
>if r8009 get some more votes or not (I have a feeling that r8009 just
>slipped away) :-)
>
>Jostein
>
>
>
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de>.
Hi Jostein,
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>On Wednesday 17 December 2003 09.29, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>
>Thanks for the votes guys!
>
>The r8009, r8010 and r8011 are merged to branch 0.35.0 as r8025.
>
>Note that this will go into 1.0 as well.
>
>Jostein
>
>
>
Thanks. I did know that it will go into 1.0 also.
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 09.29, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
Thanks for the votes guys!
The r8009, r8010 and r8011 are merged to branch 0.35.0 as r8025.
Note that this will go into 1.0 as well.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
POLL (Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0)
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
Hi,
When looking at the posts on this threads, I see that this is the status
so far about commiting the changes:
r8009 +1 kfogel
0
-1
r8010 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
0
-1
r8011 +1 dionisos kfogel bliss
0
-1
About r8009:
I'm +1 on it (but that don't count as my commit access are partial). So
If we applies the 1.0 release rules on 0.35.0 (which posting on this
thread suggests) then r8009 will not be merged.
One thing to notice is that all of you are talking about r8009 issues,
but only Karl votes. May I have your votes for r8009 please? :-)
I will hold the merge for r8010 and r8011 until my evening (CET) and see
if r8009 get some more votes or not (I have a feeling that r8009 just
slipped away) :-)
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de> writes:
> > As mentioned last time, fixing things like this is why whe have one
> > week from branching until release. Compile and crash fixes should
> > go in as long as the risk of side-effects is minimal, and that is
> > definately the case here.
> >
> > Note that everything that goes into the 0.35 branch will
> > automatically end up in the 1.0 branch since it will be created from
> > the 0.35 tag (when it has been created). I think it's best to wait
> > for one more +1 before Jostein merges this into the 0.35 branch, for
> > formalitys sake. A veto from Jostein is possible of course, but not
> > likely in this case.
I'm +1 on all 3, Patrick. Two crash fixes and a necessary README fix?
Sounds like a win...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de>.
Hi Tobias,
Tobias Ringström wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>>> r8009
>>> A recent change in svn_auth_ssl_server_trust_prompt_func_t made
>>> the javahl binding uncompilable. This changes my implmentation of
>>> that function type.
>>
>>
>> If you follow the changes in the Subversion API, could you mention the
>> revision number of the change which you are following? There has been
>> quite a
>> large checkin by Tobias. If you are following that checkin with this
>> change, then
>> it's not in 0.35.0 yet. As soon as he creates an issue for applying
>> it to
>> 1.0, you could mention your dependency in the issue tracker.
>
>
> Thanks Erik, but this particular change is an adaption for r7975 which
> is already in the 0.35 branch.
>
> Patrick, I committed another API change in r8006 that I hope to get
> into the 1.0 branch but not the 0.35 branch. I have one more API
> change lined up that I will commit shortly. After that the API should
> be stable for a long time.
I have commited 8012, which aplied that changes to javahl. I hope both
change can be put into the 1.0 branch together.
For the next change, could send me a reminder by personal mail, so that
I can follow up with my commit as fast as possible. Or could you send me
a diff before you commit? I would answer with a diff which would contain
the matching javahl changes-
>
>>> r8010
>>> I have found a crash in the javahl module, which happened because
>>> I was passing native path styles into the svn_client_* functions.
>>>
>>> r8011
>>> A small addition the README file, which is important for building
>>> javahl on MacOS X.
>>
>>
>> These two seem like the type of change we also applied to 0.34.0 after
>> branching. I'd say they should go into 0.35.0.
>
>
> I second that (i.e. +1), but there is a lot of whitespace confusion
> going on in those files...
I have to do a lot of cleanup to do. But that is not relevant for 1.0.
>
> As mentioned last time, fixing things like this is why whe have one
> week from branching until release. Compile and crash fixes should go
> in as long as the risk of side-effects is minimal, and that is
> definately the case here.
>
> Note that everything that goes into the 0.35 branch will automatically
> end up in the 1.0 branch since it will be created from the 0.35 tag
> (when it has been created). I think it's best to wait for one more +1
> before Jostein merges this into the 0.35 branch, for formalitys sake.
> A veto from Jostein is possible of course, but not likely in this case.
>
> /Tobias
>
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by Tobias Ringström <to...@ringstrom.mine.nu>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
>>r8009
>> A recent change in svn_auth_ssl_server_trust_prompt_func_t made the
>>javahl binding uncompilable. This changes my implmentation of that
>>function type.
>
> If you follow the changes in the Subversion API, could you mention the
> revision number of the change which you are following? There has been quite a
> large checkin by Tobias. If you are following that checkin with this change, then
> it's not in 0.35.0 yet. As soon as he creates an issue for applying it to
> 1.0, you could mention your dependency in the issue tracker.
Thanks Erik, but this particular change is an adaption for r7975 which
is already in the 0.35 branch.
Patrick, I committed another API change in r8006 that I hope to get into
the 1.0 branch but not the 0.35 branch. I have one more API change
lined up that I will commit shortly. After that the API should be
stable for a long time.
>>r8010
>> I have found a crash in the javahl module, which happened because I
>>was passing native path styles into the svn_client_* functions.
>>
>>r8011
>> A small addition the README file, which is important for building
>>javahl on MacOS X.
>
> These two seem like the type of change we also applied to 0.34.0 after
> branching. I'd say they should go into 0.35.0.
I second that (i.e. +1), but there is a lot of whitespace confusion
going on in those files...
As mentioned last time, fixing things like this is why whe have one week
from branching until release. Compile and crash fixes should go in as
long as the risk of side-effects is minimal, and that is definately the
case here.
Note that everything that goes into the 0.35 branch will automatically
end up in the 1.0 branch since it will be created from the 0.35 tag
(when it has been created). I think it's best to wait for one more +1
before Jostein merges this into the 0.35 branch, for formalitys sake. A
veto from Jostein is possible of course, but not likely in this case.
/Tobias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by Patrick Mayweg <ma...@qint.de>.
Hi Erik,
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>Hi Patrick,
>
>
>
>>r8009
>> A recent change in svn_auth_ssl_server_trust_prompt_func_t made the
>>javahl binding uncompilable. This changes my implmentation of that
>>function type.
>>
>>
>
>If you follow the changes in the Subversion API, could you mention the
>revision number of the change which you are following? There has been quite a
>large checkin by Tobias. If you are following that checkin with this change, then
>it's not in 0.35.0 yet. As soon as he creates an issue for applying it to
>1.0, you could mention your dependency in the issue tracker.
>
>
It is in the 0.35.0 branch already. svn blame tells me that the line was
last changed in r7975 by bliss.
>
>
>>r8010
>> I have found a crash in the javahl module, which happened because I
>>was passing native path styles into the svn_client_* functions.
>>
>>r8011
>> A small addition the README file, which is important for building
>>javahl on MacOS X.
>>
>>
>
>These two seem like the type of change we also applied to 0.34.0 after
>branching. I'd say they should go into 0.35.0.
>
>
>
>>How should I proceed?
>>
>>
>
>For 0.35.0 you made the right step at sending your request to the list. 1.0
>will be branched off from the 0.35.0 tag, so if these changes make it into
>0.35.0, they will go into 1.0. If they don't make it into 0.35.0, there is a
>new section in HACKING describing the procedure for requesting it to be in
>1.0.
>
>bye,
>
>Erik.
>
>
>
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <e....@gmx.net>.
Hi Patrick,
> r8009
> A recent change in svn_auth_ssl_server_trust_prompt_func_t made the
> javahl binding uncompilable. This changes my implmentation of that
> function type.
If you follow the changes in the Subversion API, could you mention the
revision number of the change which you are following? There has been quite a
large checkin by Tobias. If you are following that checkin with this change, then
it's not in 0.35.0 yet. As soon as he creates an issue for applying it to
1.0, you could mention your dependency in the issue tracker.
> r8010
> I have found a crash in the javahl module, which happened because I
> was passing native path styles into the svn_client_* functions.
>
> r8011
> A small addition the README file, which is important for building
> javahl on MacOS X.
These two seem like the type of change we also applied to 0.34.0 after
branching. I'd say they should go into 0.35.0.
> How should I proceed?
For 0.35.0 you made the right step at sending your request to the list. 1.0
will be branched off from the 0.35.0 tag, so if these changes make it into
0.35.0, they will go into 1.0. If they don't make it into 0.35.0, there is a
new section in HACKING describing the procedure for requesting it to be in
1.0.
bye,
Erik.
--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
"Erik Huelsmann" <e....@gmx.net> writes:
> > Merge all of what??
>
> http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-12/0814.shtml
>
> The fixes which make javahl compilable?
Thank you. I already +1'd these, I recall. I believe Jostein got
enough approvals from other committers too, but let's let him do the
counting. (Formally, I suppose, we could open an issue for the
approvals, but they're javahl bindings, not core code. Far be it from
me to get bureaucratic on him :-) ).
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <e....@gmx.net>.
> "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> writes:
> > If no objections arrives, then I merge all of them into the 0.35.0
> branch
> > tomorrow (CET) (?).
>
> Merge all of what??
>
> You're scaring me...
>
http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-12/0814.shtml
The fixes which make javahl compilable?
bye,
erik.
--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
"Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> writes:
> If no objections arrives, then I merge all of them into the 0.35.0 branch
> tomorrow (CET) (?).
Merge all of what??
You're scaring me...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Request for including patches into branch 0.35.0 and 1.0
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
If no objections arrives, then I merge all of them into the 0.35.0 branch
tomorrow (CET) (?).
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org