Hello Rob, Friday, October 26, 2007, 5:18:32 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Marcus, thanks for the feedback I will correct the formatting issues. > I'd like to re-assure you that all the testcases I just checked in were > tested against this morning's snapshots on 5.2 , 5.3 and 6.0 on both > windows and linux (6 tests for each testcases.) > I'm confused about your comment on checking in UEXPECTF into a PHP5 > branch. I'm confident that what is in CVS is now correct but I think > maybe the sequence of events I used is incorrect - please comment. Hmm, looks I read that wrong, because the check-in versions are all fine. and yes you do it perfectly correct. HEAD first then 5.3 and 5.2. Actually you can think of not doing it for 5.2 if your lazy. And if you want to be absolutely correct, then you'd prefix the 5.* commit messages with "MFH: " which stands for Merge From Head. If it were the other way round (checking in to the branch first), then you'd prefix with "MFB" or "MFB5_3" which means Merge From Base. Btw, there's two more things which however you do not need for test commits. "[DOC]", triggers a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so that documenters know there is a feature change. "BFN" means Bug Fixing News, it is followed by the bug description "#12334 (test name)" or several. Also when fixing one would use those lines. And last but not least when comitting to Zend then the commit has to be split into one for Zend and one for the rest. Best regards, Marcus p.s.: It is very nice to see how much IBM helps lately! -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
