Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 14:15:57 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote: >> The code itself looks reasonable to me, just glancing at it. >> >> The ./unit program already prints out (to stdout) which tests fail, so >> to me the important thing is that this makes ./unit exit unsuccessfully >> if there is a failed test (previously, it seems, it ALWAYS succeeded). > > Applied, with thanks to Trent for the review! > >> > [TAG stable 2008-11-17 (with 2.1.2) >> > Eric Kow <[email protected]>**20081117104434] >> > ... >> > [TAG 0.9.5 >> > [email protected]**wed Apr 9 08:01:24 EDT 2003] >> >> Why did Darcs generate such a huge context?! Shouldn't it only go back >> as far as the first tag shared with http://darcs.net/ (assuming that's >> what you "darcs sent" against)? > > Interesting question. > > Ideas, Florent? It may be interesting to see a diff of > your darcs changes --context versus darcs changes --context > http://darcs.net.
I was not in my usual repository: i wanted to use trackdown to see where the tests started failing, but i needed all quickcheck related patches to be commuted as far back in the past as possible. This was so that I could use qc 2.1 to test the state of darcs much before the 2.1 tests were introduced. So i pulled the two quickcheck 2.1 patches with all their dependencies into an empty repo, then the rest of darcs.net. Maybe that explains. By the way, this is a very very cool use case for commutation rather than git/hg history manipulation! Florent _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
