Hey Justin, On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:30 AM, <jerenkra...@apache.org> wrote: > Author: jerenkrantz > Date: Sat Aug 21 02:30:31 2010 > New Revision: 987689 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=987689&view=rev > Log: > Propose r879757 & r880320 for backport to 1.6.x. > > Modified: > subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > > Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=987689&r1=987688&r2=987689&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original) > +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Sat Aug 21 02:30:31 2010 > @@ -233,6 +233,17 @@ Candidate changes: > Votes: > +1: danielsh > > + * r879757, r880320 > + Let ra_serf work with current serf releases. > + Justification: > + Having a dud client is bad. This seems to be the minimal required > changes. > + Backport branch: > + ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r879757 > + Notes: > + r879757 is the main fix. r880320 is a follow up fix. > + Votes: > + +1: jerenkrantz
I didn't want to propose r879757 for backport because it changes the svn_ra_serf__conn_setup function declaration, which is used as a callback function for serf, in an incompatible way with serf 0.3. As long as one builds and runs svn with the same serf version there is no problem. The idea was to just raise the minimum serf version with svn 1.7 release, so this problem couldn't happen. Is this something we make promises about? Lieven
