On 02/09/2012 05:22 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com> writes: > >> Is there any sense of closure on the serf+windows test failure on the >> 1.7.x branch? My sense is that the failure does *not* expose a new >> bug on the branch, but rather smokes out an existing one. > > That's my view as well. svnrdump has a bug that causes it to rely on > the server responding to serf's series HTTP requests in a particular > order. It's not a new bug.
Has that actually been established? I mean, if all svnrdump is doing is expecting ra_serf to honor the well-established, well-documented, but ra_serf-flaunting Ev1 editor drive ordering rules ... is that really svnrdump's bug? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
