On 12/12/2011 12:28 PM, Martin Packman wrote:
> Review: Approve
>
> The code looks good. I just wonder if this also needs a
> per_transport or similar test as well. The current tests seem to
> only cover the local case, and fallout is most likely over ftp and
> such like.
I think a patch like this could be reasonably backported to older
versions of bzr. At least to 2.4, maybe not all the way back to
Lucid's 2.1.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/2011 12:28 PM, Martin Packman wrote:
> Review: Approve
>
> The code looks good. I just wonder if this also needs a
> per_transport or similar test as well. The current tests seem to
> only cover the local case, and fallout is most likely over ftp and
> such like.
I think a patch like this could be reasonably backported to older
versions of bzr. At least to 2.4, maybe not all the way back to
Lucid's 2.1.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- enigmail. mozdev. org/
l8X4ACgkQJdeBCY SNAAPrGQCdH/ 7xx/iY1Vbl4893B YPyic7f e6nDqX5e0uP55Ad Bk
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAk7
S8MAn0bz2ELKEV7
=2IvX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----