You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by br...@apache.org on 2012/11/05 11:52:07 UTC

svn commit: r1405741 - /subversion/upstream/

Author: brane
Date: Mon Nov  5 10:52:06 2012
New Revision: 1405741

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405741&view=rev
Log:
Top-level directory for vendor branches.

Added:
    subversion/upstream/

Re: svn commit: r1405741 - /subversion/upstream/

Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.

On 05.11.2012 12:07, Greg Stein wrote:
> This is good stuff.
>
> In a following commit, you added a package in here... do you actually
> intend to modify it?
>
> I would posit we do not need vendor branches unless we specifically intend
> to make local changes.

Yes, I intend to modify it (slightly) so that I can statically embed it
into libsvn_subr, similarly to what we do with amalgamated sqlite.

(Of course I'm hoping that, eventually, we might be able to get those
changes included in the upstream version.)

-- Brane

> On Nov 5, 2012 5:52 AM, <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: brane
>> Date: Mon Nov  5 10:52:06 2012
>> New Revision: 1405741
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405741&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Top-level directory for vendor branches.
>>
>> Added:
>>     subversion/upstream/
>>
>>

Re: svn commit: r1405741 - /subversion/upstream/

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.

This is good stuff.

In a following commit, you added a package in here... do you actually
intend to modify it?

I would posit we do not need vendor branches unless we specifically intend
to make local changes.

Cheers,
-g
On Nov 5, 2012 5:52 AM, <br...@apache.org> wrote:

> Author: brane
> Date: Mon Nov  5 10:52:06 2012
> New Revision: 1405741
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405741&view=rev
> Log:
> Top-level directory for vendor branches.
>
> Added:
>     subversion/upstream/
>
>