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

Re: 1.6.10 up for testing/signing

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:51:09 +0100

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike and Hyrum,
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> wrote:
> > Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the reminder. Merging the changed suggested here (r876245)
> does
> >>> indeed fix the test failure for me.
> >>
> >> Joe,
> >> I'm happy to +0 this patch, since it fixes the failure for me. I've no
> idea
> >> what it's doing under the hood, though, so I'd feel more comfortable if
> you
> >> were able to +1 it.
> >
> > Joe's changes are solid -- he's essentially just changed the Ruby wrapper
> > around txdelta transmission to ignore the digest. (It passes NULL to the
> > underlying C function so digest calculation never occurs.) And then he,
> of
> > course, no longer returns the uncalculated digest to callers.
> >
> > My only concern here is that it's a change to the Ruby API over what's
> > attempted in 1.6.x. If we're okay with that, you have my +1 to his fix.
> > But if we're trying to maintain compat in our bindings layers, we'll need
> to
> > do something different here.
> >
> Mike, thanks for reminding me that I'd done this. I didn't like it at
> the time (when I thought it only impacted 1.7), but I'd forgotten all
> about it. I wasted a lot of time trying to make SWIG do it what I
> wanted, until I remembered the minimum of what really needed to be
> done. And though I suspect no one has been using this since it was
> terribly terribly broken (actually still is at least a little broken),
> you're right I shouldn't be changing interfaces.
> Hyrum, please merge r932942 on top of r876245. I think I've
> addressed Mike's concerns and I believe I haven't screwed up making
> stuff work for you. Since I've never been able to reproduce this
> particular problem, I'm uncomfortable proposing it for backporting
> until it makes it through a test run. If it works for you, let me
> know and I will propose the pair for backporting (or you may do it for
> me as I can't monitor the list that often).

The tests pass, and I've added these revisions to STATUS in r933201, though
I've not voted for it.

Received on 2010-04-12 13:51:44 CEST

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