[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: ruby failure (was: Subversion 1.4.6 tarballs up for testing/signing)

From: David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:36:30 CET

On Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM, Peter Samuelson <peter@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_at_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
Received on Fri Dec 14 20:38:10 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.