You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by da...@apache.org on 2016/03/18 22:13:28 UTC
svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Author: danielsh
Date: Fri Mar 18 21:13:28 2016
New Revision: 1735681
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1735681&view=rev
Log:
Nominate r1735680.
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=1735681&r1=1735680&r2=1735681&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Fri Mar 18 21:13:28 2016
@@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ Candidate changes:
Votes:
+1: danielsh
+ * r1735680
+ Make SIGINT abort a commit, even at the interactive plaintext prompt.
+ (Issue #4624.)
+ Justification:
+ Can result in unintended commits (users expect ^C to abort the commit).
+ Votes:
+ +1: danielsh
+
Veto-blocked changes:
=====================
Re: svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Stefan Hett <st...@egosoft.com>.
Hi Daniel,
> Stefan Hett wrote on Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:23:52 +0200:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:28:41PM +0200, Stefan wrote:
>>>> Should this be also nominated for backporting to the 1.8 branch, since the
>>>> issue has been reported in 1.8.11
>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4624)?
>>> Officially, no. Because 1.8.x only receives fixes for security or data
>>> corruption problems at this point in time. The reporter of this bug has
>>> the option to upgrade to 1.9.x which is fully supported.
>>>
>>> Sometimes we're very nice and make exceptions. But that needs 3 or more
>>> people to invest some of their precious time which they could spend on
>>> trunk or 1.9.x instead. So it doesn't happen often.
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
> If you think it's important enough for 1.8.x, feel free to nominate it
> with my +1.
I just wasn't aware of the patch policy for 1.8. That's why I thought it
might have been overlooked.
That said: Thanks for the offer, but given the current patch policy, I
don't think the bug is "important" enough to deserve a special treatment.
--
Regards,
Stefan Hett
Re: svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Stefan Hett wrote on Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:23:52 +0200:
> Hi Stefan,
> >On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:28:41PM +0200, Stefan wrote:
> >>Should this be also nominated for backporting to the 1.8 branch, since the
> >>issue has been reported in 1.8.11
> >>(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4624)?
> >Officially, no. Because 1.8.x only receives fixes for security or data
> >corruption problems at this point in time. The reporter of this bug has
> >the option to upgrade to 1.9.x which is fully supported.
> >
> >Sometimes we're very nice and make exceptions. But that needs 3 or more
> >people to invest some of their precious time which they could spend on
> >trunk or 1.9.x instead. So it doesn't happen often.
> Thanks for pointing that out.
If you think it's important enough for 1.8.x, feel free to nominate it
with my +1.
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Stefan Hett <st...@egosoft.com>.
Hi Stefan,
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:28:41PM +0200, Stefan wrote:
>> Should this be also nominated for backporting to the 1.8 branch, since the
>> issue has been reported in 1.8.11
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4624)?
> Officially, no. Because 1.8.x only receives fixes for security or data
> corruption problems at this point in time. The reporter of this bug has
> the option to upgrade to 1.9.x which is fully supported.
>
> Sometimes we're very nice and make exceptions. But that needs 3 or more
> people to invest some of their precious time which they could spend on
> trunk or 1.9.x instead. So it doesn't happen often.
Thanks for pointing that out.
--
Regards,
Stefan Hett
Re: svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:28:41PM +0200, Stefan wrote:
> Should this be also nominated for backporting to the 1.8 branch, since the
> issue has been reported in 1.8.11
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4624)?
Officially, no. Because 1.8.x only receives fixes for security or data
corruption problems at this point in time. The reporter of this bug has
the option to upgrade to 1.9.x which is fully supported.
Sometimes we're very nice and make exceptions. But that needs 3 or more
people to invest some of their precious time which they could spend on
trunk or 1.9.x instead. So it doesn't happen often.
Re: svn commit: r1735681 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Stefan <lu...@posteo.de>.
Hi,
On 3/18/2016 22:13, danielsh@apache.org wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Fri Mar 18 21:13:28 2016
> New Revision: 1735681
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1735681&view=rev
> Log:
> Nominate r1735680.
>
> 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=1735681&r1=1735680&r2=1735681&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Fri Mar 18 21:13:28 2016
> @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ Candidate changes:
> Votes:
> +1: danielsh
>
> + * r1735680
> + Make SIGINT abort a commit, even at the interactive plaintext prompt.
> + (Issue #4624.)
> + Justification:
> + Can result in unintended commits (users expect ^C to abort the commit).
> + Votes:
> + +1: danielsh
> +
> Veto-blocked changes:
> =====================
Should this be also nominated for backporting to the 1.8 branch, since
the issue has been reported in 1.8.11
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4624)?
Regards,
Stefan