Patch applied in r29660 tonight.
tory");
+}
+
+pass("Completed all tests in $0");
+
+
+# SUBROUTINES #
+
+sub setup_cache {
+my ($rev, $cwd) = @_;
+my $tdir = tempdir( CLEANUP => 1 );
+ok( chdir $tdir, "Changed to temporary directory for testing" );
+my $libdir = qq{$tdir/lib};
+
On Thursday 17 July 2008 19:15:52 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> + if (! defined $args->{revision}) {
> + $args->{revision} = 'unknown';
> + _print_to_cache($args->{cache}, $args->{revision});
> + return $args->{revision};
> + } else {
> + if (defined ($args->{prev}
ot;Unable to delete file after testing";
+ok( chdir $cwd, "Able to change back to starting directory");
+}
+
+pass("Completed all tests in $0");
+
+
+# SUBROUTINES #
+
+sub setup_cache {
+my ($rev, $cwd) = @_;
+my $tdir = tempdir( CLEANUP => 1 );
+ok(
On Wed Jul 16 06:27:16 2008, julianalbo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, James Keenan via RT
[snip]
>
> > If no one gets to this today I will try to work on this this evening.
>
> Go for it.
>
On Wed Jul 16 04:12:35 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> The control flow here is so
>
> The desired behavior is creating the file if not present or his number
> is outdated, not touching it if the number is already correct.
>
At 29516, that seems to be what it's doing
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this new subroutine could use some refactoring:
Yes, my goal was to fix the problem as fast as possible, and I'm not
very fluent with perl.
> If no one gets to this today I will try to work on this this even
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:45 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just ran a test on XP-Home (using Strawberry Perl) after updating to
> r29495. Configure.pl creates the file (whether or not it was present), but
> the value appears to be a constant 0. (Make test and perl6 have no
> effect.)
Pleas
> I fixed the problem in r29488, but I don't have any windows
> environment available to test.
>
I just ran a test on XP-Home (using Strawberry Perl) after updating to
r29495. Configure.pl creates the file (whether or not it was present), but
the value appears to be a constant 0. (Make test and pe
Confirmed fixed on windows in r29509.
--
tjh
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:02 AM, NotFound wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Tim Heckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Starting in r29489, .parrot_current_rev contains "0" instead of
the revision
number.
I was using a simpli
I think this new subroutine could use some refactoring:
30 sub update {
31 my $prev = _get_revision();
32 my $revision = _analyze_sandbox();
33 if (defined ($prev) && ($revision ne $prev)) {
34 $revision = 'unknown' unless defined $revision;
35
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Tim Heckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Starting in r29489, .parrot_current_rev contains "0" instead of the revision
> number.
I was using a simplified way to call svn info avoiding locale
dependencies, and forgot to replace with a more
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:32 AM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Worse, the logic the set the current revision for svn updates is
>> wrong.
> No, the logic was correct. As particle said on #parrot yesterday,
> ".parrot_current_rev should always
Starting in r29489, .parrot_current_rev contains "0" instead of the
revision number.
--
tjh
On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Tim Heckman wrote:
Seems to be broken as of r29503.
nmake realclean (.parrot_current_rev is deleted)
svn update
perl Configure.pl
.parrot_current_rev c
For r29488, what I observe (on Windows) is that
* Configure.pl generates .parrot_current_rev with the correct
revision number (but this is broken in r29503 -- see my earlier
message)
* Configure.pl does update .parrot_current_rev when the file
already exists, provided the revision
Seems to be broken as of r29503.
nmake realclean (.parrot_current_rev is deleted)
svn update
perl Configure.pl
.parrot_current_rev contains "0"
Also, if I run Configure.pl again, the timestamp on the file does not
change.
--
tjh
On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:26 PM, NotFound wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
> Subject: .parrot_current_rev
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> The file .parrot_current_rev is missing in the Release, and also the
> re
I fixed the problem in r29488, but I don't have any windows
environment available to test.
--
Salu2
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
>> Subject: .parrot_current_rev
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Worse, the logic the set the current rev
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, via RT Will Coleda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
> Subject: .parrot_current_rev
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Worse,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The file .parrot_current_rev is missing in the Release, and also the
> revision is nowhere
> mentioned in any Release Note, not the ChangeLog and not in news.
> This is annoying, because you don't know
rom: Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Subject: .parrot_current_rev
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The file .parrot_current_rev is missing in the Release, and also the
revision is nowhere
mentioned in any Release Note, not the ChangeLog and not in news.
This is annoying
The file .parrot_current_rev is missing in the Release, and also the
revision is nowhere
mentioned in any Release Note, not the ChangeLog and not in news.
This is annoying, because you don't know if a particular bugfix is
included or not.
Worse, the logic the set the current revision fo
23 matches
Mail list logo
