You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> on 2007/12/14 18:11:33 UTC
Re: ruby failure (was: Subversion 1.4.6 tarballs up for testing/signing)
On Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote:
>
> [Peter Samuelson]
> > I get two failures in the ruby bindings, using ruby 1.8.6.111.
>
> Fixed in trunk r26071; please backport this. I don't know if it's
> worth rerolling the 1.4.6 tarball for.
Yes, we need to re-roll; we should not release with failing tests.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ruby failure (was: Subversion 1.4.6 tarballs up for testing/signing)
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Dec 14, 2007 11:36 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Peter Samuelson]
> > > > > I get two failures in the ruby bindings, using ruby 1.8.6.111.
> > > >
> > > > Fixed in trunk r26071; please backport this. I don't know if it's
> > > > worth rerolling the 1.4.6 tarball for.
> > >
> > > Yes, we need to re-roll; we should not release with failing tests.
> >
> > I'm not really qualified to say whether or not r26071 should be backported.
> >
> > Are we sure that the API change in svn_client_diff_summarize2 that
> > they're describing isn't a bug?
>
> OK. So r25654 made an incompatible API change, but it was a bugfix.
>
> r26071 adjusted the ruby tests to deal with this change (note, though,
> that Joe could have also changed the expectation to expect [""]
> instead of [file]).
>
> So I think backporting r26071 is fine. I haven't actually tested it
> myself, because I don't usually build the Ruby bindings. I'll test it
> now and then nominate it if that works.
Nominated. Just needs a +0 from any (partial or full) committer.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ruby failure (was: Subversion 1.4.6 tarballs up for testing/signing)
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [Peter Samuelson]
> > > > I get two failures in the ruby bindings, using ruby 1.8.6.111.
> > >
> > > Fixed in trunk r26071; please backport this. I don't know if it's
> > > worth rerolling the 1.4.6 tarball for.
> >
> > Yes, we need to re-roll; we should not release with failing tests.
>
> I'm not really qualified to say whether or not r26071 should be backported.
>
> Are we sure that the API change in svn_client_diff_summarize2 that
> they're describing isn't a bug?
OK. So r25654 made an incompatible API change, but it was a bugfix.
r26071 adjusted the ruby tests to deal with this change (note, though,
that Joe could have also changed the expectation to expect [""]
instead of [file]).
So I think backporting r26071 is fine. I haven't actually tested it
myself, because I don't usually build the Ruby bindings. I'll test it
now and then nominate it if that works.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ruby failure (was: Subversion 1.4.6 tarballs up for testing/signing)
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote:
> >
> > [Peter Samuelson]
> > > I get two failures in the ruby bindings, using ruby 1.8.6.111.
> >
> > Fixed in trunk r26071; please backport this. I don't know if it's
> > worth rerolling the 1.4.6 tarball for.
>
> Yes, we need to re-roll; we should not release with failing tests.
I'm not really qualified to say whether or not r26071 should be backported.
Are we sure that the API change in svn_client_diff_summarize2 that
they're describing isn't a bug?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org