You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> on 2013/04/24 10:02:14 UTC
Re: Issue 4359 fix not merged to 1.8.x
Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com> writes:
> It looks like the wrong revision number was given in STATUS, as it's a
> tomcat commit:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1471029
r1471028 is the revision that should have been proposed/voted/merged.
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Re: Issue 4359 fix not merged to 1.8.x
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@elego.de>.
Blair Zajac wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:32:39 -0700:
> I think adding a check like that would be good.
>
r1471467, see comments within for a (minor) limitation that introduced.
> I just want to know what did everybody review ;)
Good question.
Re: Issue 4359 fix not merged to 1.8.x
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
I think adding a check like that would be good.
I just want to know what did everybody review ;)
Blair
On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:06 AM, Daniel Shahaf <da...@elego.de> wrote:
> Should backport.pl attempt to catch such a situation?
>
> I'm inclined to say "No", since the entry should not have been moved
> below the "Approved" header and given three +1 votes if it had a revnum
> typo. (But it should be easy to inject an 'svn log -qvr | wc -l > 4' type
> check, if people prefer that.)
>
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 09:02:14 +0100:
>> Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com> writes:
>>
>>> It looks like the wrong revision number was given in STATUS, as it's a
>>> tomcat commit:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1471029
>>
>> r1471028 is the revision that should have been proposed/voted/merged.
>>
>> --
>> Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
>> http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
>
Re: Issue 4359 fix not merged to 1.8.x
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@elego.de>.
Should backport.pl attempt to catch such a situation?
I'm inclined to say "No", since the entry should not have been moved
below the "Approved" header and given three +1 votes if it had a revnum
typo. (But it should be easy to inject an 'svn log -qvr | wc -l > 4' type
check, if people prefer that.)
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 09:02:14 +0100:
> Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com> writes:
>
> > It looks like the wrong revision number was given in STATUS, as it's a
> > tomcat commit:
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1471029
>
> r1471028 is the revision that should have been proposed/voted/merged.
>
> --
> Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
> http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download