Stefan Sperling wrote on Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:49:45 +0100: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:56:55AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > hwri...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 17:58:00 -0000: > > > Author: hwright > > > Date: Wed Feb 16 17:58:00 2011 > > > New Revision: 1071330 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1071330&view=rev > > > Log: > > > Merge r1051744, r1051745, r1053185, r1053241 from trunk, using the > > > instructions > > > included below: > > > > > > * r1051744, r1051745, r1053185, r1053241 > > > Add additional assertions to the unit tests that use > > > svn_fs_commit_txn() and svn_repos_svn_commit_txn(). > > ... > > > Diff: > > > svn diff -x-p ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x@1052423 \ > > > ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r1051744@HEAD > > > Notes: > > > Merge all the changes on the 1.6.x-r1051744 branch and then merge > > > r1051745. > > > Votes: > > > +1: blair, danielsh, stsp > > > > What? There was a 'diff' command so I just used that. If the > > instructions to merge are "Merge the branch, then merge another > > revision", then I haven't reviewed the additional revision. > > I fell into the same trap and I've already complained about it. > See http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-02/0554.shtml > and Blair's reply: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-02/0566.shtml
Oh! "*Not* was a large commit". I misread that as "Note", which is why I noted here that I hadn't +1'd it. OK -- having reviewed the change, I extend my +1 to cover r1051745 too. Thanks :)
