You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> on 2005/10/16 17:14:16 UTC
Re: svn commit: r16753 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_subr libsvn_wc
djames@tigris.org wrote:
> Author: djames
> Date: Sun Oct 16 09:26:40 2005
> New Revision: 16753
>
> Modified:
> trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h
> trunk/subversion/include/svn_wc.h
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/constructors.c
> trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/util.c
>
> Log:
> Revert r16375, r16741, and r16752, in preparation for reapplying as a
> clean
> commit. This simplifies the review process for the 1.3.x branch.
Let's not make a habit of this in the general case.
In the instance I did this, I did it *only* because I was completely
throwing away one approach to tackling the problem, and replacing it with an
unrelated change.
If I understand correctly, r16375, r16741, and r16752 were an incremental
development of a single design.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r16753 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_subr libsvn_wc
Posted by David James <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 10/16/05, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> djames@tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: djames
> > Date: Sun Oct 16 09:26:40 2005
> > New Revision: 16753
> >
> > Modified:
> > trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h
> > trunk/subversion/include/svn_wc.h
> > trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/constructors.c
> > trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/util.c
> >
> > Log:
> > Revert r16375, r16741, and r16752, in preparation for reapplying as a
> > clean
> > commit. This simplifies the review process for the 1.3.x branch.
>
> Let's not make a habit of this in the general case.
>
> In the instance I did this, I did it *only* because I was completely
> throwing away one approach to tackling the problem, and replacing it with an
> unrelated change.
>
> If I understand correctly, r16375, r16741, and r16752 were an incremental
> development of a single design.
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining this! I'll avoid this approach in future.
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james