Hi Kristis,
 Thanks.Actually i am using scmbug 0.26.15 for bugzilla 3.4.1.
 I shall try to see the changes manually and try to make it work for 3.4.1.
 any help from Uditha will be appreciated.
 I want to apply this patch in scmbug 0.26.15 version.moving to the 0.26.16
is not possible because i am running out of time.

 Thanks,
 Debasis

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Kristis Makris <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Debasis,
>
> Perhaps Uditha could help with this work to identify the minimum set of
> changes (a new patch) that are needed to support status changes in
> Scmbug 0.26.16 for Bugzilla 3.4.
>
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 19:52 +0530, Debasis Mishra wrote:
> > Hi Kristis,
> >  Thanks .comments are getting reflected in bugzilla but status is not
> > getting changed.
>
> OK, this confirms that you are experiencing the expected behavior.
> Scmbug 0.26.16 was supposed to have comments properly reflected but not
> support status changes.
>
> >   I went through the patch code.i am confused.
> >   because the whole subroutines/functions are not provided.only few
> > lines of the subroutines is given which is confusing.
>
> The patch could be applied using the 'patch' utility. e.g.
>
> $ patch --dry-run -p0 < Bugzilla.pm.patch
>
> # and if there are no errors, remove "--dry-run":
>
> $ patch -p0 < Bugzilla.pm.patch
>
> # If there are errors, a Bugzilla.pm.rej file would be produced
>
> It is not possible to provide the complete Bugzilla.pm file. First, the
> Bugzilla.pm file changed for Scmbug 0.26.16 (from 0.26.15), hence we
> would be supplying you with the wrong file. Second, the patch indicates
> everything necessary to apply this change. If the patch does not apply
> cleanly, then this means considerable changes to Bugzilla.pm were
> applied that make this patch incompatible for use with Scmbug 0.26.16.
> You would need to manually examine the changes, understand them and
> integrate them appropriately (this could be hard to do).
>
> Having a patch, instead of a separate Bugzilla.pm file, is a good thing:
> it protects you from using a (possibly incorrect) Bugzilla.pm file from
> a different version of Scmbug.
>
> I am **sure** that parts of this patch are incorrect and would not apply
> cleanly since detecting Bugzilla version 3.0 and 3.2 is implemented with
> new routines.
>
>
> It also seems that Uditha had provided a .pm file at some point:
>
> http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/attachment.cgi?id=422
>
> ...but if I were you I would not use it.
>
> From what I understand, the logic needed to support status changes shows
> up at the end of the patch, starting from:
>
> -        $dbh->bz_unlock_tables();
>
> ... # It starts here
>
> +               $bug->set_status( $status, { resolution => $resolution } );
> +
> +               # $dbh->bz_start_transaction();
>
> ...
>
>
> >   1.sub bug_status_map
> >   2.sub integration_change_bug_resolution
> >   Can anybody please provide me the bugzilla.pm file where the status
> > change is being implemented.then i can try to make it work on bugzilla
> > 3.4.1.or else the full subroutine which is changed is also fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Debasis
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Kristis Makris <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >         Well... status changes for Bugzilla 3.4 (or 3.2) are not
> >         supported :)
> >
> >         http://www.mkgnu.net/node/177
> >
> >         There was some work by Uditha on supporting status changes for
> >         Bugzilla
> >         3.2, which you may be able to clean-up and reuse. It hadn't
> >         been merged
> >         because it was breaking status changes for Bugzilla 3.0.
> >
> >         http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1246
> >
> >
> >         On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 13:48 +0530, Debasis Mishra wrote:
> >         > Hi Kristis,
> >         >  Thanks a lot for your reply.I tried with the patch for the
> >         version
> >         > 3.4.1.
> >         >  my postcommit hook is not failing and i am able to commit.
> >         >
> >         >  But I am unable to see any difference in bugzilla.there is
> >         no change
> >         > in the status.
> >         >  I was expecting the status should be changed from assigned
> >         to
> >         > resolved.and the comment what i had given during the comment
> >         should be
> >         > included.I am not sure this was my expectation.
> >
> >
> >         Are the comments you enter showing up if no status changes are
> >         specified ?
> >
>
_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users

Reply via email to