See below for a few messages that were related to the latest collection sheet patches. These messages were sent off-list.
Hopefully having the conversation on-list will allow us to work together to figure out what went wrong with the patch process and help us make things work more smoothly in the future! Pramod introduced me to rapidshare (thanks, Pramod!) so I'll use that to provide a link to share the patch. File hosting services are handy since they avoid the mailing list restrictions on attachments, and I think linking to patches instead of attaching them is generally fine since patches have a very limited lifetime. http://rapidshare.com/files/84328744/16Jan-diff-2.patch.gz When using an third-party file sharing service, it is also a good idea to provide a secure hash of your file. That way others will know that the content was not tampered with. The SHA-1 checksum for the file "16Jan-diff-2.patch.gz" is ffc50f8bffd2905ff04ba1f2bb4b946fc5b03e64 (The command-line program "sha1sum" was used to generate it). Pramod, is this patch against SVN revision 12252? I tried applying the patch to a fresh working copy updated to 12252 but there were too many errors to count. On Jan 16, 2008 8:16 AM, Pramod Biligiri wrote, > Hi Keith, > I tried applying the patch again after reverting my code again. No > problems. The project builds too (I didn't run the tests this time). > > One thing I noticed is that for both these files (CenterBO.java and > GroupBO.java), the latest commit seems to have been today (Wednesday > 16 Jan by vanmh): > > Last commit revision: 12:32:37 am, Wed, Jan 16, 2008 - vanmh > > Perhaps that has something to do with it? Hope that helps... > > Pramod Biligiri, > ThoughtWorks "Keith Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/16/2008 09:04:46 PM: > > Hi, Pramod, > > > > As I apply your patch, I've observed some strange behavior in the > > patch. Do you observe similar behavior? > > > > I followed your instructions to ignore 1 leading path segment, but > > still saw conflicts in two files (unmatched segments), > > src/org/mifos/application/customer/center/business/CenterBO.java and > > src/org/mifos/application/customer/group/business/GroupBO.java, even > > after ignoring white space. In the compare panes, it appeared that > > Eclipse's apply-patch logic could not determine where to put the > > insertions. Do you have any idea why I'm getting this behavior? I > > looked closely at the diffs and they appear to be ok and in proper > > unified diff format. > > > > I went ahead and applied the patch, generating .rej files, and then > > manually applied those diffs. I am now running all unit tests > > against the patch, and will send you the results (it takes about an > > hour on my desktop). Hopefully the tests will complete before we > > talk at 10 IST. > > > > Keith On Jan 16, 2008 4:24 AM, Pramod Biligiri wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Please find attached the patch for the Collection Sheet Report > > > changes. This time I've created it using the command line diff > > > tool as Adam Monsen suggested on the Mifos Developers list. I have > > > tested applying it in Eclipse against revision 12254 of mifos svn. > > > It passes all the test cases. > > > > > > When you use Eclipse's "Team->Apply Patch", make sure to look for > > > the option "Ignore leading path name segments" and Select "1" from > > > the drop down. And check the checkbox next to each new file for it > > > to be added. > > > > > > I've also uploaded the corresponding war file to RapidShare: > > > http://rapidshare.com/files/84229337/mifos.war > > > > > > Pramod Biligiri, > > > ThoughtWorks -- Adam Monsen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
