On Tue, 2010-03-16, Paul Burba wrote:
> Your patch looks good to me. It passes all tests [fsfs x ra_local]
> and I can't see that it will introduce any problems. I assume the
> mergeinfo_tests.py 2 failure you mentioned at the start of the thread
> was solved in v2?
Thanks. Yes, the test failur
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-03-15, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Julian Foad
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Paul.
>>> >
>>> > I think we can tighten the validation of svn_merge_range_t to
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Julian Foad
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Paul.
>> >
>> > I think we can tighten the validation of svn_merge_range_t to exclude
>> > change number "r0" (RANGE->start == -1) as in
On Mon, 2010-03-15, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Julian Foad
> wrote:
> > Hi Paul.
> >
> > I think we can tighten the validation of svn_merge_range_t to exclude
> > change number "r0" (RANGE->start == -1) as in the following patch.
> >
> > My reasoning is that a change nu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi Paul.
>
> I think we can tighten the validation of svn_merge_range_t to exclude
> change number "r0" (RANGE->start == -1) as in the following patch.
>
> My reasoning is that a change numbered "r0" is not a valid concept in
> any Subversion
BTW this is just a request for comments, not a finished patch.
(mergeinfo_tests.py 2 fails and I have not yet investigated.)
- Julian
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Hi Paul.
>
> I think we can tighten the validation of svn_merge_range_t to exclude
> change number "r0" (RANGE->start == -1) as in the f
6 matches
Mail list logo
