I lied. Due to completely preventable circumstances, this merge won't be done tonight; instead, it will be done tomorrow evening.
- C On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:41 -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Chris McDonough] > > Thanks for this! > > Not required, so long as I get to thank you for finishing it ;-) > > > Looks like that test failure is incidental and not symptomatic of > > changes made to ZODB. I think Tres may have said that it can be > > fixed by merging in a fix from the Five HEAD, but I don't know this > > for fact first-hand. > > I'm sure that failure will go away by itself when you're working on > the trunk instead of the branch. What I'd do now: > > - Check out Zope trunk. > > - Merge the branch into your trunk sandbox, and forget the branch. > > - Fix merge conflicts. I got one, in datatypes.py, and I didn't know > immediately what to do about it so stopped there. You'll have > better luck ;-). Note that, under SVN, after you fix a conflict, you > have to do "svn resolved path/to/conflicted/file"; that's a gimmick > to make sure you don't forget about conflicts. > > - "svn up" to make sure you've got all the externals the merged > files point at. > > - "svn up" from time to time thereafter, to suck in other trunk changes > as they get made. > > - Check it in when it's stable. > > - If it takes longer than expected, make a _new_ branch _from_ > your merged-into-trunk local trunk sandbox. (That's easy: make a > branch directory, "svn switch" to it from your local merged trunk > sandbox, and "svn commit" -- all done). > > > It's encouraging that most of the tests pass but there are a paucity > > of tests that specifically test Zope 2 multidatabase-based mount > > points. There are a few convincing-looking decoys in > > Products.ZODBMountPoint.tests but I think I'll need to create a few > > more to get the warm and fuzzies before doing the merge. > > As above, you can do a _local_ merge right away. This would save you > from other decoys (like the DeprecationWarnings that would no longer > exist if you were using the trunk instead of the brach, and the > failing-on-branch-but-not-trunk Five test). > > I recall that, historically, the Zope tests never failed when Zope > mounting was in fact broken, so a fat +1 to beefing test coverage > there. > > > I have this on my plate for Wednesday evening. > > Understood; there really isn't any good TV on Wednesdays anymore ;-) > _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )