Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: encountered temporary error during SPF
 processing of domain of philip@codematters.co.uk)
From: Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk>
To: Branko =?utf-8?Q?=C4=8Cibej?= <brane@wandisco.com>
Cc: Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: 1.8.x backport conflicts bot is red
References: <54F19E80.60302@wandisco.com> <87385qrwjj.fsf@wandisco.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:38:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <87385qrwjj.fsf@wandisco.com> (Philip Martin's message of "Sat,
	28 Feb 2015 13:32:48 +0000")
Message-ID: <87y4niqhq3.fsf@codematters.co.uk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Philip Martin <philip.martin@wandisco.com> writes:

> I could change the proposal
> but I don't know if the backport script would then interpret Daniel's
> vote for the other revisions as approving the whole backport:

I don't think the backport script would do that but changing the
proposal looks like the wrong thing: the 'missing' revisions are
proposed for merge to 1.8.x just not from trunk.  I suppose we could
change the backport script to also look for 'missing' revisions in the
commits made to the proposed branch.

-- 
Philip