On 14 May 2015 at 17:51, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 23:37:40 +0300: >> On 13 May 2015 at 23:31, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] >> >> Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2015 17:42 >> >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> >> Subject: svn commit: r1679230 - >> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c >> >> >> >> Author: ivan >> >> Date: Wed May 13 15:41:40 2015 >> >> New Revision: 1679230 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679230 >> >> Log: >> >> Follow-up to r1679169: Extend 'fs-test 63' test. >> >> >> >> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c >> >> (freeze_and_commit): Re-open FS and make another commit. >> > >> > Do you have a specific reason for not adding this to the backport >> > nomination? >> > >> > Looks like a good test extension that should also apply to 1.9.x. >> > >> I didn't have reasons against backporting it. I just wanted save >> Daniel time to vote again because of this minor test improvement. Feel >> free to add these commits to backport nomination and extend my vote >> for them. > > Thanks, but I don't understand why my availability is a consideration in > the backport decision. > If the patch needs to be backported and I didn't > have time to review it, someone else would have (and even if no one did, > we would yet have had the STATUS entry as a visible reminder of the task > that is yet to be done). > Sure. I just didn't see enough reasons to backport this fix, but it *could be* backported
> I went ahead and nominated both patches in a separate group, so those > who reviewed the fix itself don't have to review the test fixes too. > (That group is already approved, actually, as it needs just two votes.) > Thanks! -- Ivan Zhakov
