Change History (11)
comment:1 by , 18 years ago
comment:2 by , 18 years ago
Should this be fixed for 6.2?
There is no milestone set in the ticket :-/
comment:3 by , 18 years ago
I can't find it now, but I'm sure there used to be a note on Sleepycat's site saying something to the affect of "only install these patches if directed to do so by our support team". On reading http://dev.sleepycat.com/downloads/patching.html, I now see "You should apply all of the patches that are provided for that version of Berkeley DB." So maybe this should be addressed for 6.2, assuming it doesn't adversley affect Subversion or presumably man-db.
comment:4 by , 18 years ago
I don't have a problem putting an upstream patch in 6.2, but I'd like to get it tested first. I was going to do the final 6.2 on Sunday, so the testing this patch will be appreciated.
comment:5 by , 18 years ago
| Milestone: | → 6.2 |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from to |
| Status: | new → assigned |
| Version: | SVN → 6.2-pre1 |
comment:7 by , 18 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
There are 2 patches that need to be applied. Was the original post not clear enough? Reopening, as the fix looks like it only applies one of the patches. Please, read the bug reports, so that the fixes can be properly applied. :-(
comment:8 by , 18 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Please look at the patch that the book uses.
comment:9 by , 18 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
Don't want to look at the patch the book uses. I want to see us applying the upstream patches, which there are two of.
If the current fix is to combine the upstream patches, then it is just confusing. Please, do it right, and apply the upstream patches as they are intended. We have no business consolidating patches that are provided by upstream.
Vim patches noted, and in total disagreement for creating new ones, as is the current book method.
comment:10 by , 18 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Disagreement noted. There is something to say for consistency and its too close to release major changes. Your suggestion to apply 20 odd vim patches separately is a bit cumbersome.
comment:11 by , 18 years ago
Actually, they're up to 42 upstream vim patches now. Add to that the 17 bash patches, 4 readline patches and now 2 bdb patches, you've potentially got 65 commands where four would do the same job! If folks are interested in the contents of the patches, they can go to the URLs that are in the patch headers, IMO.
Do these patches change the results of Subversion testsuite?