On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Paul Burba <ptbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There are some vetos in the 1.6.x branch that seem like they are >> questioning the change, not just whether it was a candidate for >> backport. What does that mean for trunk and 1.7? Here are the items >> I am thinking of (leaving out the items that were vetoed only because >> they were not considered appropriate for a fix release): >> >> * r921453, r927184, r927243 >> Fix reopened issue #3020 'Reflect dropped/renumbered revisions in >> svn:mergeinfo data during svnadmin load' >> Justification: >> Prior to this fix, when loading a partial dump with mergeinfo, the >> resulting mergeinfo in the target repository could refer to non-existent >> revisions or revisions that have nothing to do with the merge source >> in the original repository. The original fix for issue assumed that >> the dump stream was for a complete repository. >> Notes: >> r921453 and 927184 are tests, r927243 is the fix. >> Branch: >> ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue3020 >> Votes: >> +1: kameshj >> -1: pburba (There is a regression with this fix, see >> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-03/0716.shtml) > > The primary "fix" for issue #3020, r927243, was reverted on trunk > (r936387). Issue #3020 then spawned a slew of partial fixes (25 > separate changes). A few problems still exist but are not scheduled > to be fixed, see > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3020#desc20. > > I'd like to remove this nomination from STATUS since it makes no sense > to nominate a change that has been reverted, any objections?
None here. > P.S. None of these 25 fixes was backported to 1.6.x. Some are are not > suitable for backport because they introduce changes to dump's output > (e.g. r937033) but many probably could be backported. My memory is a > bit foggy on this, but IIRC I felt 1.7 was coming "real soon now" so > held off on backporting (it was/is going to be a bit of a beast to > backport and review). Backporting these has remained a low priority > on my TODO list. I'm happy to bump it up if we feel that is the right > course of action. +0. If folks are asking for it, go ahead, but I'm not too concerned. -Hyrum
