Shouldn't you include in the backport nomination the "subsequent revision" mention in r1104309's log message?
[[[ NOTE: There is a remaining 3525-related test that is still failing (update_tests.py 53), but that's because of out-of-date expectations in the WC-NG world. (That will be fixed in a subsequent revision.) ]]] cmpil...@apache.org wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 16:06:00 -0000: > Author: cmpilato > Date: Tue May 17 16:06:00 2011 > New Revision: 1104367 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1104367&view=rev > Log: > * STATUS: Propose r1104309 for backport. > > 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=1104367&r1=1104366&r2=1104367&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original) > +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Tue May 17 16:06:00 2011 > @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ Candidate changes: > Votes: > +1: pburba, stsp > > + * r1104309 > + Fix issue #3525 ("Locked file which is scheduled for delete causes > + tree conflict") and issue #3471 ("svn up touches file w/ lock & > + svn:keywords property"). > + Justification: > + Tree conflicts are frustrating enough without flagging false ones. > + Branch: > + ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r1104309 > + Votes: > + +1: cmpilato > + > Veto-blocked changes: > ===================== > > >
