Code review comment for lp:~parthm/bzr/262450
Revision history for this message
| Martin Pool (mbp) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
On 18 February 2010 00:27, Parth Malwankar <email address hidden> wrote:
> Not sure it resubmit of the proposal was the right thing to do as the comments remain with the previous proposal. Oh well.
Generally you don't need to resubmit, just push to your branch.
>
> Martin said:
>
>> This will probably clash with your other patch to use numbered backups.
>
> Yes. Depending on the order in which they land I could look into updating it. It should be minor as only backup_dir needs to be updated in one place in the test case.
>
>>Also just a note for the future, if you want you can do bugfixes based off and proposed back into bzr.2.0. This kind of thing would be good to put into the stable release; indeed it might be worth backporting from your branch.
>
> Makes sense. I will look into backporting this fix.
> Do we just want to port the permissions fix or should I also look into porting the numbered backup.bzr naming fix?
Well, they're both bug fixes, but I would say that the permissions one
is more clearly just a bug fix, whereas the numbering one introduces
more of a permissions change. So I would backport only the first.
--
Martin <http://