Paul, Could you either merge the following item, or create a backport branch? There is a conflict somewhere in the test.
Thanks, -Hyrum On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:34 PM, hwri...@apache.org wrote: > Author: hwright > Date: Tue Mar 16 01:34:14 2010 > New Revision: 923536 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923536&view=rev > Log: > * STATUS: Note the fact that the r892050 group does not merge cleanly. > > Modified: > subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > > Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=923536&r1=923535&r2=923536&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original) > +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Tue Mar 16 01:34:14 2010 > @@ -300,6 +300,8 @@ Approved changes: > referential mergeinfo that is also self-referential to the reintegrate > target. This occured in our own repository, see > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-12/0338.shtml. > + Notes: > + hwright sez: Danger! Danger! This has merge conflicts. > Votes: > +1: pburba, rhuijben, cmpilato > > >
