Evgeny Kotkov writes:
> Do you plan on voting for the corresponding group? If yes, could you please
> extend the nomination with this JavaHL change? I am then going to look into
> it more carefully and will update my vote accordingly.
On the other hand, we're just one vote short with the core
Branko Čibej writes:
>> And I have the JavaHL bits done but now I have to leave in 10 minutes,
>> which isn't enough time to review and write the log message. Will commit
>> this evening.
>
> r1688273; I propose we add it to the existing backport proposal.
>From a quick glance, r1688273 looks go
On 29.06.2015 12:20, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.06.2015 22:15, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
>> Branko Čibej writes:
>>
It would be a nice thing to have, but I am thinking that we should first
nominate this change for a backport to 1.9.x, as we are dealing with an
API change.
Can
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> The following patch also appears to fix the bug -- all tests pass.
[...]
Bert Huijben wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that we mix recording of mergeinfo to keep the intermediate
> state… and the recording of the final conflict resolving result, by only
> updating the mergeinf
On 28.06.2015 22:15, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>>> It would be a nice thing to have, but I am thinking that we should first
>>> nominate this change for a backport to 1.9.x, as we are dealing with an
>>> API change.
>>>
>>> Can we do that without having a complete JavaHL wrappe
5 matches
Mail list logo
