Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
[...]
> 1.7.x
> Julian: 1.7.x-r1594156 (not modified)
I found that a branch incorrectly named '1.7.x-r1594157' was used instead for
backporti
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> So now we need to:
>>
>> * undo the merge of the 1.8.x-r1611379 branch
>
> +1.
r1643849.
>> * re-nominate my original nomination.
>
> +1.
r1643849 and r1643850.
I down-graded all our votes (including my own) from +1 to +0 because whatever
we d
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Julian Foad
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> > backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
> [...]
>
> > 1.8.x
> > Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
>
> Ugh. Thanks for rep
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
> backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file.
[...]
> 1.8.x
> Julian: 1.8.x-r1619380 (not modified)
Ugh. Thanks for reporting this discrepancy. There is a mess here.
First, it IS modified
On 05.12.2014 22:25, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> 1.8.x
> Brane: 1.8.x-javahl-exception-crash (fully merged into 1.8.x)
I just removed this; thanks for the heads-up!
-- Brane
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 22:25:55 +0100:
> The list names the branch "owners" and the reason why those branches
> are obsolete. If nobody objects, I'll remove them around the 15th this
> month.
...
> 1.7.x
> Daniel: 1.7.x-fs-verify (not merged, withdrawn from STATUS)
+1 to rem
Looking through ^/subversion/branches, I found that there are many
backport branches that are not mentioned in any STATUS file. After
consulting 'svn mergeinfo' and log, I found that the ones listed below
can be removed.
The list names the branch "owners" and the reason why those branches
are obso
7 matches
Mail list logo
