On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 20:50 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 17:27 -0700, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > Going further, if that change is reverted, the next failure seems to
> > come from when they redid the compiler API. What's odd is that the
> > code doesn't look like it should be an issue, but the bisects keep
> > pointing to it. This is revision
> > 96b356d7c9a8e5626b4ce018577984b89c7f2178.
> From further investigation, it looks like that patch was completely
> broken until they added both c1ff4867fe57a9fffbddae38b51d888c85304a87
> and fb51fba3f391a9685f4ab65757e7511e3f927df8 to fix it properly. So
> we're probably getting a false-positive from git bisect because those
> two patches are also not included. Maybe a quick 'git rebase -i' to
> merge those into 96b356d7c9a8e5626b4ce018577984b89c7f2178 will allow git
> bisect to find the real culprit?
> The only other thing I noticed was that they did change behavior in one
> place in that code. In Compiler.compile(), they were previously passing
> "output_path" to the compilers as the output argument, but this patch
> changes that to be "output_file" as determined by finders.find(). Being
> unfamiliar with the code and the return type of finders.find(), I can't
> say whether this is relevant.

Thanks very much for your help on this Christian, but at this point
(with my deadline running close and the hour growing late), I'm just
going to go the downgrade route and treat this as a life-lesson: always
test version compatibility before making a release.

Thanks again, and if we find a solution for this later on, I can still
upgrade django_pipeline back up to a recent release. I'll just be
carrying the annoying "epoch" version-mangle forever. C'est la vie.

Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to