You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> on 2014/03/21 10:31:57 UTC
RE: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stefan2@apache.org [mailto:stefan2@apache.org]
> Sent: zondag 5 januari 2014 15:35
> To: commits@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-
> r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
>
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Sun Jan 5 14:34:46 2014
> New Revision: 1555517
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1555517
> Log:
> On the 1.8.x-r1536854 branch, remove a test that depends on
> /trunk features.
>
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> (verify_invalid_path_changes): Drop.
> (test_list): Update.
Hi Stefan,
Can you sync this branch with 1.8.x, resolving the conflicts caused by backporting the 1.8.x-r1574868 branch?
At first sight the text conflicts don't look trivial... But that is probably because I didn't review this patch yet.
Bert
RE: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
Hi,
Splitting the range in two commits made things much easier. probably also
for other reviewers.
I opened the conflicted second merge in DiffMerge and it automatically
merged everything correctly.
Both patches introduced new functions in +- the same location of the file.
The svn diff didn't make that obvious to me, but the conflict resolution was
as simple as just including both blocks.
Bert
From: Stefan Fuhrmann [mailto:stefan.fuhrmann@wandisco.com]
Sent: zaterdag 22 maart 2014 17:39
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Subversion Development; Stefan Fuhrman
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1555517 -
/subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.
py
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl
<ma...@qqmail.nl> > wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stefan2@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
[mailto:stefan2@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> ]
> Sent: zondag 5 januari 2014 15:35
> To: commits@subversion.apache.org <ma...@subversion.apache.org>
> Subject: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-
> r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
>
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Sun Jan 5 14:34:46 2014
> New Revision: 1555517
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1555517
> Log:
> On the 1.8.x-r1536854 branch, remove a test that depends on
> /trunk features.
>
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> (verify_invalid_path_changes): Drop.
> (test_list): Update.
Hi Stefan,
Can you sync this branch with 1.8.x, resolving the conflicts caused by
backporting the 1.8.x-r1574868 branch?
You obviously beat me on that ;)
At first sight the text conflicts don't look trivial... But that is probably
because I didn't review this patch yet.
Looking at the diffs, your approach of splitting
the merge into before and after the conflict
seemed to have reduced the size of the conflict.
-- Stefan^2.
Re: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: stefan2@apache.org [mailto:stefan2@apache.org]
> > Sent: zondag 5 januari 2014 15:35
> > To: commits@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1555517 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x-
> > r1536854/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> >
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Sun Jan 5 14:34:46 2014
> > New Revision: 1555517
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1555517
> > Log:
> > On the 1.8.x-r1536854 branch, remove a test that depends on
> > /trunk features.
> >
> > * subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> > (verify_invalid_path_changes): Drop.
> > (test_list): Update.
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Can you sync this branch with 1.8.x, resolving the conflicts caused by
> backporting the 1.8.x-r1574868 branch?
>
You obviously beat me on that ;)
At first sight the text conflicts don't look trivial... But that is
> probably because I didn't review this patch yet.
>
Looking at the diffs, your approach of splitting
the merge into before and after the conflict
seemed to have reduced the size of the conflict.
-- Stefan^2.