"Hyrum K. Wright" writes:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> So unless somebody has a fix coming soon for issue #3641, I think we
>> should either backport r1036429 or veto it *and* revert r962378. The
>> third option, leaving r962378 but not backporting r1036429 seems th
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> ...
>> I reopened issue #3641 and tweaked the test for that issue to
>> demonstrate this problem, see
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1036978.
>>
>> So what to do
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
...
> I reopened issue #3641 and tweaked the test for that issue to
> demonstrate this problem, see
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1036978.
>
> So what to do about the r1036429 backport nomination? With r1036429
> in place,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM, wrote:
>>> Author: stsp
>>> Date: Fri Nov 19 00:11:15 2010
>>> New Revision: 1036686
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1036686&view=rev
>>> Lo
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM, wrote:
>> Author: stsp
>> Date: Fri Nov 19 00:11:15 2010
>> New Revision: 1036686
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1036686&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Downgrade my vote for r1036429.
>>
>> Modified
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM, wrote:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Fri Nov 19 00:11:15 2010
> New Revision: 1036686
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1036686&view=rev
> Log:
> * STATUS: Downgrade my vote for r1036429.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversio
6 matches
Mail list logo