subversion-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From rhuij...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r1661797 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Date Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:56:07 GMT
Author: rhuijben
Date: Mon Feb 23 21:56:06 2015
New Revision: 1661797

URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1661797
Log:
* STATUS
  Nominate a few things, that I think should be released in 1.9, but can
  only be easily backported as a huge catch-up merge.

  But I'm not sure if we should release a 1.9.0 with so many known issues,
  on how you can corrupt wc.db.

Modified:
    subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS

Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1661797&r1=1661796&r2=1661797&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Feb 23 21:56:06 2015
@@ -75,6 +75,26 @@ Candidate changes:
    Votes:
      +1: philip, rhuijben
 
+ * r1661664, r1661669, r1661673, r1661695, r1661682, r1661698
+   Properly handle deletes that have local replacements as a plain delete
+   Justification:
+     Avoids loosing work. This scenario needs to raise tree conflicts in
+     the update editor.
+   Notes:
+     More backports or a backport branch might be necessary.
+     Contains change to public api, so 1.9.0 only
+     (And otherwise performance hit)
+   Votes:
+     +0: rhuijben (Fixes actual user bugs)
+
+ * r1661718 and many others
+   Fix invalid database state (moves) on incoming deletes during update
+   Justification:
+     Fixes database corruption. A huge catch-up merge is probably easier
+     than a backport.
+   Votes:
+     +0: rhuijben
+
 Veto-blocked changes:
 =====================
 



Mime
View raw message