Author: pburba
Date: Thu Dec 2 15:03:04 2010
New Revision: 1041401
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1041401&view=rev
Log:
* STATUS: Vote and approve r1022675 and r1032808.
Modified:
subversion/branches/1.5.x/STATUS
Modified: subversion/branches/1.5.x/STATUS
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.5.x/STATUS?rev=1041401&r1=1041400&r2=1041401&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.5.x/STATUS (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.5.x/STATUS Thu Dec 2 15:03:04 2010
@@ -187,6 +187,21 @@ Candidate changes for 1.5.9:
-0: stsp (not a critical build or security fix -- maybe just
document the workaround instead?)
+Approved changes:
+=================
+
+ * r876925, r876931
+ 'svnadmin upgrade'-ing pre-1.2 repositories fails for lack of
+ 'db/format' file.
+ Justification:
+ 'svnadmin upgrade' was designed to allow for this situation, but clearly
+ does not.
+ Notes:
+ Backport branch needed, the function in question has seen a lot of churn.
+ Votes:
+ +1: cmpilato, danielsh, rhuijben
+ -0: hwright (until such time as a backport branch exists)
+
* r1022675 (r982355 from ^subversion/branches/performance)
Limit the amount of unused memory fragments held by the root pools.
Justification:
@@ -198,7 +213,7 @@ Candidate changes for 1.5.9:
Use --accept=mine-full to avoid bizzare branch root property conflicts
on 'svn:ignore' and 'bugtraq:logregex'.
Votes:
- +1: stsp, philip
+ +1: stsp, philip, pburba
(For 1.6.x there was +1: pburba, cmpilato, hwright)
* r1032808
@@ -207,20 +222,6 @@ Candidate changes for 1.5.9:
As detailed in http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-11/0102.shtml,
blame -g can trigger a serious server side memory leak.
Votes:
- +1: stsp, philip
+ +1: stsp, philip, pburba
(For 1.6.x there was +1: pburba, cmpilato, hwright)
-Approved changes:
-=================
-
- * r876925, r876931
- 'svnadmin upgrade'-ing pre-1.2 repositories fails for lack of
- 'db/format' file.
- Justification:
- 'svnadmin upgrade' was designed to allow for this situation, but clearly
- does not.
- Notes:
- Backport branch needed, the function in question has seen a lot of churn.
- Votes:
- +1: cmpilato, danielsh, rhuijben
- -0: hwright (until such time as a backport branch exists)
