You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> on 2014/08/10 18:47:37 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509:
subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/
subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...
On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ivan
> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
> New Revision: 1617088
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
> Log:
> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
-1
You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good
and valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and
vote!) on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
e. brane@wandisco.com
Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509:
subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/
subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 11.08.2014 11:56, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Anyway, I got your point that it's bad to change branch when it's in
> review/vote stage. So I've reverted all my branch changes in r1617225.
> I'll wait until Ben resolve my concerns about branch raised on [VOTE]
> thread.
Thanks! This is all so much easier to follow now.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
e. brane@wandisco.com
Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509:
subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/
subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 11 August 2014 03:54, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2014 22:26, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>
> On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
> On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
> New Revision: 1617088
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
> Log:
> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
>
>
> -1
>
> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and
> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!)
> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
>
> Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing
> Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but
> current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose
> of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
>
>
> This was not a veto. It was a request, and I said plainly why I made it.
>
>
Ack.
> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
>
> I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll
> have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in
> situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben.
>
> Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my
> commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of
> course.
>
> Ben already said why he didn't want to have a special display function
> private to the x509 parser. Once again, your only counter-argument is "code
> churn" and, once again, you're ignoring other people's arguments because you
> don't like them.
>
> Please stop doing that. It's not productive.
>
I didn't ignore Ben's arguments: I addressed them by making public
function for formatting cert fingerprints.
Anyway, I got your point that it's bad to change branch when it's in
review/vote stage. So I've reverted all my branch changes in r1617225.
I'll wait until Ben resolve my concerns about branch raised on [VOTE]
thread.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509:
subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/
subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 10.08.2014 22:26, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
>> New Revision: 1617088
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
>> Log:
>> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
>> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
>> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
>>
>>
>> -1
>>
>> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and
>> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!)
>> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
>>
> Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing
> Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but
> current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose
> of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
This was not a veto. It was a request, and I said plainly why I made it.
>> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
>>
> I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll
> have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in
> situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben.
>
> Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my
> commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of
> course.
Ben already said why he didn't want to have a special display function
private to the x509 parser. Once again, your only counter-argument is
"code churn" and, once again, you're ignoring other people's arguments
because you don't like them.
Please stop doing that. It's not productive.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
e. brane@wandisco.com
Re: svn commit: r1617088 - in /subversion/branches/svn-auth-x509:
subversion/include/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/ subversion/libsvn_fs_base/bdb/
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/ subversion/libsvn_fs_x/ subversion/libsvn_subr/
subversion/libsvn_wc/ subversion/mod_da...
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
> New Revision: 1617088
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
> Log:
> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
>
>
> -1
>
> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and
> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!)
> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
>
Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing
Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but
current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose
of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
>
I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll
have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in
situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben.
Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my
commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of
course.
--
Ivan Zhakov