subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1697390 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:41:16 GMT
On 24.08.2015 15:32, stefan2@apache.org wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> New Revision: 1697390
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697390
> Log:
> * STATUS: Add svnfsfs load-index fixes (r1697381, r1697384, r1697387).
>
> 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=1697390&r1=1697389&r2=1697390&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> @@ -129,6 +129,15 @@ Candidate changes:
>     Votes:
>       +1: rhuijben
>  
> + * r1697381, r1697384, r1697387
> +   Make 'svnfsfs load-index' work as advertised in the documentation
> +   Justification:
> +     svnfsfs load-index would only ever be used in high-stress situations
> +     like desaster recovery.  So, while workarounds are possible, having
> +     people jump though a few extra hoops is a bad thing in that context.
> +   Votes:
> +     +1: stefan2
> +

I have to admit that I don't have a clue what this backport proposal is
about. What doesn't work as advertised? What kind of workarounds are we
talking about?

According to the log messages of these three revisions, it would appear
that they're three (unrelated?) bug fixes in svnfsfs. However, I can't
find any test cases that would help me verify that the fixes actually
perform as advertised.

In other words, I've no idea how to vote for this backport.

-- Brane

Mime
View raw message