httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [vote] mod_ldap
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:20:53 GMT
On 7/12/2011 2:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:02, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Which should be the combined revert of
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1143225
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1143222
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1143221
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1141203
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1141201
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1140075
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1140069
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1130186
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1131393
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1129956
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1129891
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1129886
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1129808
>>
>> Sorry, I don't see applying a mega-revert.  Either piecemeal
>> or wholesale svn cp's from pre-1129808 seems more sensible.
>> The later is more legible in svn, because re-applying the
>> commits with proper attribution would be messy.
> 
> 'svn cp' can be dangerous... you may wipe out other, unrelated changes.

Absolutely, I understand that.  Each specific unrelated change will
be recommitted with all original attributions and svn references.
The vast majority of commits are ldap changes.

I will not be svn cp'ing the entire project, only targeted modules/ldap/
and specific include/ and build/ files.  That's why I need reliable
connectivity to apply this 'overwrite' back to the old state of svn,
while preserving the changes to other parts of httpd/trunk/

>>From a version control aspect, you also lose the information that the
> (above) revisions were reverse-merged (aka reverted). But I would
> simply state that is a pedantic detail, and the revert process should
> use whatever is easiest. If you go with 'svn cp', then just check the
> logs on the target files to ensure you don't lose unrelated changes.

+1, concur.  Guenter et al, are the ldap changes more than 50% ldap
changes, or fewer?  I'd go with the path of least resistance on NWGNUxxx
history.

Mime
View raw message