On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:15:12PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 01:01:35PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >> On 29/06/11 10:58, Dan McGee wrote: > >> >We fubar-ed this pretty good. > >> > > >> >1. The whole old/new move shuffle was totally busted if you used a > >> >relative path to your database, as we would just build the database in > >> >place. > >> >2. Our prior temp directory layout had the database files extracted > >> >directly into it. When we tried to create a xxx.db.tar.gz file in this > >> >same directory, due to the fact that we were no longer using a shell > >> >wildcard, we tried to include the db in ourself, which is a big failure. > >> >Fix all this by extracting to tree/ so we can have a clean top-level > >> >temp directory. > >> >3. Fix the inclusion of the './' directory entry; ensure the regex > >> >prunes both leading paths of '.' as well as './'. > >> > > >> >Where is that test suite again? > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Dan McGee<[email protected]> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Allan > >> > >> Updating my repo without this patch resulted in fun! > >> > >> > > > > I think we axed this as well. The tarball gets all out of order > > (directories first), so we're going to go with my original patch that > > Dan Nack'ed, which was to use "ugly" bash... > > > > (shopt -s nullgob; files=(*); ((${#files[*]}))) > > > > almost lispy... > > No, we axed just the bsdtar bit, not the rest of it. Creating a tar > file in the same directory as the files you are archiving is not > really a good idea ever, even if some crappy shell expansion avoids > it. It clearly burned us once, so I'm not having it burn us again. > > -Dan >
Oh yeah. We did discuss this. So, ignore the patch I just sent. I've got the right one somewhere... d
