You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by iv...@apache.org on 2015/05/13 17:41:40 UTC
svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Author: ivan
Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
New Revision: 1679230
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
Log:
Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
* subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
(freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
Modified:
subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c?rev=1679230&r1=1679229&r2=1679230&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c (original)
+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
@@ -6927,7 +6927,7 @@ freeze_and_commit(const svn_test_opts_t
/* And the same once again, for good measure. */
SVN_ERR(svn_fs_freeze(fs, noop_freeze_func, NULL, pool));
- /* Make some commit. */
+ /* Make some commit using same FS instance. */
SVN_ERR(svn_fs_begin_txn(&txn, fs, new_rev, pool));
SVN_ERR(svn_fs_txn_root(&txn_root, txn, pool));
SVN_ERR(svn_fs_change_node_prop(txn_root, "/", "temperature",
@@ -6935,6 +6935,15 @@ freeze_and_commit(const svn_test_opts_t
pool));
SVN_ERR(test_commit_txn(&new_rev, txn, NULL, pool));
+ /* Re-open FS and make another commit. */
+ SVN_ERR(svn_fs_open(&fs, "test-freeze-and-commit", NULL, subpool));
+ SVN_ERR(svn_fs_begin_txn(&txn, fs, new_rev, pool));
+ SVN_ERR(svn_fs_txn_root(&txn_root, txn, pool));
+ SVN_ERR(svn_fs_change_node_prop(txn_root, "/", "temperature",
+ svn_string_create("451", pool),
+ pool));
+ SVN_ERR(test_commit_txn(&new_rev, txn, NULL, pool));
+
return SVN_NO_ERROR;
}
Re: svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 14 May 2015 at 17:51, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 23:37:40 +0300:
>> On 13 May 2015 at 23:31, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: ivan@apache.org [mailto:ivan@apache.org]
>> >> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
>> >> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
>> >> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
>> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>> >>
>> >> Author: ivan
>> >> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
>> >> New Revision: 1679230
>> >>
>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
>> >> Log:
>> >> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
>> >>
>> >> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>> >> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
>> >
>> > Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
>> >
>> > Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
>> >
>> I didn't have reasons against backporting it. I just wanted save
>> Daniel time to vote again because of this minor test improvement. Feel
>> free to add these commits to backport nomination and extend my vote
>> for them.
>
> Thanks, but I don't understand why my availability is a consideration in
> the backport decision.
> If the patch needs to be backported and I didn't
> have time to review it, someone else would have (and even if no one did,
> we would yet have had the STATUS entry as a visible reminder of the task
> that is yet to be done).
>
Sure. I just didn't see enough reasons to backport this fix, but it
*could be* backported
> I went ahead and nominated both patches in a separate group, so those
> who reviewed the fix itself don't have to review the test fixes too.
> (That group is already approved, actually, as it needs just two votes.)
>
Thanks!
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: svn commit: r1679230 -
/subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 23:37:40 +0300:
> On 13 May 2015 at 23:31, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ivan@apache.org [mailto:ivan@apache.org]
> >> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
> >> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> >>
> >> Author: ivan
> >> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
> >> New Revision: 1679230
> >>
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
> >> Log:
> >> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
> >>
> >> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> >> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
> >
> > Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
> >
> > Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
> >
> I didn't have reasons against backporting it. I just wanted save
> Daniel time to vote again because of this minor test improvement. Feel
> free to add these commits to backport nomination and extend my vote
> for them.
Thanks, but I don't understand why my availability is a consideration in
the backport decision. If the patch needs to be backported and I didn't
have time to review it, someone else would have (and even if no one did,
we would yet have had the STATUS entry as a visible reminder of the task
that is yet to be done).
I went ahead and nominated both patches in a separate group, so those
who reviewed the fix itself don't have to review the test fixes too.
(That group is already approved, actually, as it needs just two votes.)
Cheers,
Daniel
Re: svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 13 May 2015 at 23:31, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ivan@apache.org [mailto:ivan@apache.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
>> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>>
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
>> New Revision: 1679230
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
>> Log:
>> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
>>
>> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
>
> Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
>
> Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
>
I didn't have reasons against backporting it. I just wanted save
Daniel time to vote again because of this minor test improvement. Feel
free to add these commits to backport nomination and extend my vote
for them.
--
Ivan Zhakov
RE: svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ivan@apache.org [mailto:ivan@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
> New Revision: 1679230
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
> Log:
> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
>
> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
Bert
RE: svn commit: r1679230 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ivan@apache.org [mailto:ivan@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42
> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015
> New Revision: 1679230
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230
> Log:
> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test.
>
> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit.
Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport nomination?
Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x.
Bert