← Back to team overview

svn team mailing list archive

Re: Preparing to merge with upcoming Subversion 1.6.12dfsg-1 from Debian testing

 

On 30/06/10 13:34, Michael Diers wrote:
> On 2010-06-30 10:08, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 25/06/10 15:55, Michael Diers wrote:
>>> Peter Samuelson has submitted Subversion 1.6.12dfsg-1 to Debian
>>> unstable. With Peter's tweaks to the test suite, the builds on all
>>> Debian platforms now look quite alright.
>>>
>>> The package will soon transition to Debian testing and eventually get
>>> collected in bzr branch lp:debian/squeeze/subversion.
>>>
>>> Before merging into lp:~svn/ubuntu/lucid/subversion/ppa, there is one
>>> merge mistake from the previous sync that I'd like to fix: I managed to
>>> lose the kwallet configuration switch for karmic and jaunty.
>>>
>>> I expect to be able to do some work over the next couple of days.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looks like you've been overrun by real life? :-)
> 
> Max,
> 
> not "real life", but football :) I've spent some time putting together
> 1.6.12dfsg-1~bpo50+2 for Debian "lenny-backports", still looking for a
> sponsor to upload it.
> 
>> I have some time to work on this tonight, and would quite like to be
>> running the newer svn locally myself.
>>
>> Would I be stepping on your toes if I went ahead and did this merge?
> 
> Absolutely not. Let me just push the KWallet bits... there, at least the
> "lucid" branch is there for you to merge to.

Err.. I object to that revision and would like to revert it. It's a big
changelog entry that is a misleading copy/paste of
1.6.9dfsg-1ubuntu0svn1 - those actions are now listed in the changelog
twice, but only happened once. This is confusing!

Also the commit message speaks of KWallet, when there is no
kwallet-related change in that commit, nor even any kwallet-related
change happening in the lucid branch at all.

There's no need to introduce a new changelog entry in the lucid branch
for a change touching only karmic/jaunty/hardy.

> Perhaps you could leave the
> merges to karmic, jaunty and hardy to me?

Any particular reason? I think the PPA should maintain consistency
across all distroseries it serves, whereever possible, and it's not
really that much more work to do 4 distroseries rather than just one.


Max.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Follow ups

References