You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com> on 2021/08/03 21:44:53 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1891998 - /subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
Den tis 3 aug. 2021 kl 23:40 skrev <ds...@apache.org>:
> Author: dsahlberg
> Date: Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> New Revision: 1891998
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1891998&view=rev
> Log:
> * STATUS: Upgrading my vote for r1891908 (now being a full committer).
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1891998&r1=1891997&r2=1891998&view=diff
>
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> @@ -96,8 +96,7 @@ Candidate changes:
> Justification:
> Small fix. Prevents spurious hard fails of 'make davautocheck'.
> Votes:
> - +1: danielsh
> - +1 (non-binding): dsahlberg
> + +1: danielsh, dsahlberg
>
> Veto-blocked changes:
> =====================
>
@Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> Should this be backported also to
1.10.x? It exhibits the same problem and the same fix applies there. If so,
I can copy over the same backporting proposal.
Kind regards,
Daniel Sahlberg
Re: svn commit: r1891998 - /subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
Posted by Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>.
Den lör 14 aug. 2021 14:43Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> skrev:
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 23:44:53 +0200:
> > Den tis 3 aug. 2021 kl 23:40 skrev <ds...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Author: dsahlberg
> > > Date: Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > > New Revision: 1891998
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1891998&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > * STATUS: Upgrading my vote for r1891908 (now being a full committer).
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > > subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > >
> > > Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > > URL:
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1891998&r1=1891997&r2=1891998&view=diff
> > >
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> > > +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > > @@ -96,8 +96,7 @@ Candidate changes:
> > > Justification:
> > > Small fix. Prevents spurious hard fails of 'make davautocheck'.
> > > Votes:
> > > - +1: danielsh
> > > - +1 (non-binding): dsahlberg
> > > + +1: danielsh, dsahlberg
> > >
> > > Veto-blocked changes:
> > > =====================
> > >
> >
> > @Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> Should this be backported also to
> > 1.10.x? It exhibits the same problem and the same fix applies there. If
> so,
> > I can copy over the same backporting proposal.
>
> Yes. As you say, mod_dontdothat is a hard dependency of the test suite
> in 1.10.x too, so adding the dependency in Makefile shouldn't break
> anything, even in an LTS branch. I've taken your email as a +1 to
> backport and added the nomination with both of our votes.
>
Yes, +1 from me. Thanks!
/dsahlberg
Re: svn commit: r1891998 - /subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
Posted by Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>.
Den lör 14 aug. 2021 14:43Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> skrev:
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 23:44:53 +0200:
> > Den tis 3 aug. 2021 kl 23:40 skrev <ds...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Author: dsahlberg
> > > Date: Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > > New Revision: 1891998
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1891998&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > * STATUS: Upgrading my vote for r1891908 (now being a full committer).
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > > subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > >
> > > Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > > URL:
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1891998&r1=1891997&r2=1891998&view=diff
> > >
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> > > +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > > @@ -96,8 +96,7 @@ Candidate changes:
> > > Justification:
> > > Small fix. Prevents spurious hard fails of 'make davautocheck'.
> > > Votes:
> > > - +1: danielsh
> > > - +1 (non-binding): dsahlberg
> > > + +1: danielsh, dsahlberg
> > >
> > > Veto-blocked changes:
> > > =====================
> > >
> >
> > @Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> Should this be backported also to
> > 1.10.x? It exhibits the same problem and the same fix applies there. If
> so,
> > I can copy over the same backporting proposal.
>
> Yes. As you say, mod_dontdothat is a hard dependency of the test suite
> in 1.10.x too, so adding the dependency in Makefile shouldn't break
> anything, even in an LTS branch. I've taken your email as a +1 to
> backport and added the nomination with both of our votes.
>
Yes, +1 from me. Thanks!
/dsahlberg
Re: svn commit: r1891998 - /subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 23:44:53 +0200:
> Den tis 3 aug. 2021 kl 23:40 skrev <ds...@apache.org>:
>
> > Author: dsahlberg
> > Date: Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > New Revision: 1891998
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1891998&view=rev
> > Log:
> > * STATUS: Upgrading my vote for r1891908 (now being a full committer).
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> >
> > Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > URL:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1891998&r1=1891997&r2=1891998&view=diff
> >
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> > +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > @@ -96,8 +96,7 @@ Candidate changes:
> > Justification:
> > Small fix. Prevents spurious hard fails of 'make davautocheck'.
> > Votes:
> > - +1: danielsh
> > - +1 (non-binding): dsahlberg
> > + +1: danielsh, dsahlberg
> >
> > Veto-blocked changes:
> > =====================
> >
>
> @Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> Should this be backported also to
> 1.10.x? It exhibits the same problem and the same fix applies there. If so,
> I can copy over the same backporting proposal.
Yes. As you say, mod_dontdothat is a hard dependency of the test suite
in 1.10.x too, so adding the dependency in Makefile shouldn't break
anything, even in an LTS branch. I've taken your email as a +1 to
backport and added the nomination with both of our votes.
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: svn commit: r1891998 - /subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 23:44:53 +0200:
> Den tis 3 aug. 2021 kl 23:40 skrev <ds...@apache.org>:
>
> > Author: dsahlberg
> > Date: Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > New Revision: 1891998
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1891998&view=rev
> > Log:
> > * STATUS: Upgrading my vote for r1891908 (now being a full committer).
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> >
> > Modified: subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS
> > URL:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS?rev=1891998&r1=1891997&r2=1891998&view=diff
> >
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS (original)
> > +++ subversion/branches/1.14.x/STATUS Tue Aug 3 21:40:40 2021
> > @@ -96,8 +96,7 @@ Candidate changes:
> > Justification:
> > Small fix. Prevents spurious hard fails of 'make davautocheck'.
> > Votes:
> > - +1: danielsh
> > - +1 (non-binding): dsahlberg
> > + +1: danielsh, dsahlberg
> >
> > Veto-blocked changes:
> > =====================
> >
>
> @Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> Should this be backported also to
> 1.10.x? It exhibits the same problem and the same fix applies there. If so,
> I can copy over the same backporting proposal.
Yes. As you say, mod_dontdothat is a hard dependency of the test suite
in 1.10.x too, so adding the dependency in Makefile shouldn't break
anything, even in an LTS branch. I've taken your email as a +1 to
backport and added the nomination with both of our votes.
Thanks,
Daniel