You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com> on 2014/12/05 22:25:55 UTC
Removing leftover backport branches
Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file. After
consulting 'svn mergeinfo' and log, I found that the ones listed below
can be removed.
The list names the branch "owners" and the reason why those branches
are obsolete. If nobody objects, I'll remove them around the 15th this
month.
-- Stefan^2.
1.8.x
Brane: 1.8.x-javahl-exception-crash (fully merged into 1.8.x)
Philip: 1.8.x-r1577812 (fully merged into 1.8.x)
Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
1.7.x
StSp: 1.7.x-issue3741 (fully merged, directly from /trunk)
Philip: 1.7.x-issue4091 (fully merged, directly from /trunk)
Bert: 1.7.x-issue-4295 (not modified)
Julian: 1.7.x-r1594156 (not modified)
Bert: 1.7.x-commit-performance (not merged, withdrawn from STATUS)
Daniel: 1.7.x-fs-verify (not merged, withdrawn from STATUS)
Neels: 1.7.x-i4016 (not merged, superseded by a smaller patch, never
mentioned in STATUS)
StSp: 1.7.x-r1195873 (not merged, never mentioned in STATUS)
Bert: 1.7.x-r1557094 (not merged, vetoed, later removed from STATUS)
1.6.x
Blair: 1.6.x-r1051744 (fully merged into 1.6.x)
Daniel: 1.6.x-r1053984 (fully merged into 1.6.x)
Paul: 1.6.x-r878590 (fully merged into 1.6.x)
Stylesen: 1.6.x-r39692 (not merged, vetoed, later removed from STATUS)
Paul: 1.6.x-issue3657 (not merged, never mentioned in STATUS)
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
[...]
> 1.7.x
> Julian: 1.7.x-r1594156 (not modified)
I found that a branch incorrectly named '1.7.x-r1594157' was used instead for backporting r1594156, so I have removed this.
- Julian
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> So now we need to:
>>
>> * undo the merge of the 1.8.x-r1611379 branch
>
> +1.
r1643849.
>> * re-nominate my original nomination.
>
> +1.
r1643849 and r1643850.
I down-graded all our votes (including my own) from +1 to +0 because whatever we did before voting we clearly didn't test the branch mentioned in the nomination :-( I'm now reviewing and testing the nomination, using a merge from the (now correctly) mentioned branch.
- Julian
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> > backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
> [...]
>
> > 1.8.x
> > Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
>
> Ugh. Thanks for reporting this discrepancy. There is a mess here.
>
A typical case of BCD ;) - Bad Commit Day or Bad Code Day.
> First, it IS modified; I committed the branch creation and modification
> together ;-)
>
May bad, I didn't log verbosely. -v revealed that
Bert: 1.7.x-issue-4295
is actually modified as well.
> It was proposed for backport, but the process went wrong.
>
> "svn log --stop-on-copy --search 1619380 --diff" shows:
>
> In r1619394 I "Nominate r1619380 group (diffing a copied dir with props)".
>
> In r1619401 I "Mention the backport branch for the r1619380 group" ... by
> adding this to the nomination:
>
> + Branch:
> + ^/subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1611379
>
> Oops, I wrote the wrong branch name (copy-and-paste-o). My apologies.
>
> Then Bert and Stefan approve this nomination, and in r1640665 the
> 'svn-role' robot merges the mentioned (wrong) branch.
>
I obviously didn't check the branch contents vs. the claimed revisions :(
Luckily, the named_atomics code modified in r1611379 should be ineffective
in 1.8.x by now.
> The r1611379 branch was for a separate nomination, "Fix revprop caching
> initialization delays for ra_serf on Windows". It was first mentioned in
> STATUS in r1612544 and was WITHDRAWN in r1620644, replaced by r1619774
> "Disable the revprop caching feature".
>
> But it has been merged anyway. So now we need to:
>
> * undo the merge of the 1.8.x-r1611379 branch
>
+1.
* re-nominate my original nomination.
>
+1.
-- Stefan^2.
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
[...]
> 1.8.x
> Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
Ugh. Thanks for reporting this discrepancy. There is a mess here.
First, it IS modified; I committed the branch creation and modification together ;-)
It was proposed for backport, but the process went wrong.
"svn log --stop-on-copy --search 1619380 --diff" shows:
In r1619394 I "Nominate r1619380 group (diffing a copied dir with props)".
In r1619401 I "Mention the backport branch for the r1619380 group" ... by adding this to the nomination:
+ Branch:
+ ^/subversion/branches/1.8.x-r1611379
Oops, I wrote the wrong branch name (copy-and-paste-o). My apologies.
Then Bert and Stefan approve this nomination, and in r1640665 the 'svn-role' robot merges the mentioned (wrong) branch.
The r1611379 branch was for a separate nomination, "Fix revprop caching initialization delays for ra_serf on Windows". It was first mentioned in STATUS in r1612544 and was WITHDRAWN in r1620644, replaced by r1619774 "Disable the revprop caching feature".
But it has been merged anyway. So now we need to:
* undo the merge of the 1.8.x-r1611379 branch
* re-nominate my original nomination.
- Julian
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 05.12.2014 22:25, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> 1.8.x
> Brane: 1.8.x-javahl-exception-crash (fully merged into 1.8.x)
I just removed this; thanks for the heads-up!
-- Brane
Re: Removing leftover backport branches
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 22:25:55 +0100:
> The list names the branch "owners" and the reason why those branches
> are obsolete. If nobody objects, I'll remove them around the 15th this
> month.
...
> 1.7.x
> Daniel: 1.7.x-fs-verify (not merged, withdrawn from STATUS)
+1 to remove, the feature was released in 1.8.0.
Thanks.
Daniel