Den tis 21 apr. 2026 kl 12:32 skrev Daniel Sahlberg <[email protected]>: > > I expected the svn-role script to commit this backport last night but it > seems something is wrong. I hope to take a look at it tonight.
After checking on the new svn-qavm machine I found a mistake from my side setting up the password for the svn-role account on our new svn-qavm machine. Much of the setup of svn-qavm is in Puppet but this specific bit can't be automated (it would be a bad idea to put the password of svn-role in a public git repo...). r1933214 was an interactive commit (just to verify I had the right password for svn-role) and r1933215 and r1933218 were done "hands off" (just running the backport script as if run by cron). I plan to leave r1931266 approved for the automatic backport tomorrow morning. /Daniel > > /Daniel > > mån 20 apr. 2026 kl. 18:19 skrev <[email protected]>: >> >> Author: ivan >> Date: Mon Apr 20 16:19:49 2026 >> New Revision: 1933188 >> >> Log: >> * STATUS: Vote for r1931549. Approving. >> >> Modified: >> subversion/branches/1.15.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: subversion/branches/1.15.x/STATUS >> ============================================================================== >> --- subversion/branches/1.15.x/STATUS Mon Apr 20 16:12:02 2026 >> (r1933187) >> +++ subversion/branches/1.15.x/STATUS Mon Apr 20 16:19:49 2026 >> (r1933188) >> @@ -49,17 +49,6 @@ Candidate changes: >> Votes: >> +1 (not binding): brane >> >> - * r1931549 >> - Use bytewise content comparison in the "is the file modified?" working >> copy >> - checks if we have the pristine file content. >> - Justification: >> - Avoid changing the file comparison characteristics for working copies >> with >> - pristine contents. >> - Notes: >> - Discussed in >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/128rgf7ozn72ljfzn7o18gfhb9l43y26 >> - Votes: >> - +1: kotkov, rinrab >> - >> Veto-blocked changes: >> ===================== >> >> @@ -76,3 +65,14 @@ Approved changes: >> +0: hartmannathan >> +1 (not binding): brane >> +1: dsahlberg, rinrab, ivan >> + >> + * r1931549 >> + Use bytewise content comparison in the "is the file modified?" working >> copy >> + checks if we have the pristine file content. >> + Justification: >> + Avoid changing the file comparison characteristics for working copies >> with >> + pristine contents. >> + Notes: >> + Discussed in >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/128rgf7ozn72ljfzn7o18gfhb9l43y26 >> + Votes: >> + +1: kotkov, rinrab, ivan >>
