On 05/17/2011 06:09 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > 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 (update_tests.py 53), but that's because of out-of-date expectations 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.) > ]]]
The relevant test aren't in 1.6.x right now, and I'm not so concerned with proposing that they be backported. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
