Re: svn commit: r1933188 - subversion/branches/1.15.x

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
>>