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

Re: [PATCH] More bindings for gnome_keyring / platform_specific_client_providers

From: Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs_at_stdin.nl>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:31:14 +0100

Hi folks,

> over a year ago, I submitted a patch to make the
> svn_auth_get_platform_specific_client_providers perl bindings work, to
> allow git-svn to work with gnome_keyring. Since then, I've been working
> on some further improvements, which I've attached as patches.
has anyone got a chance to have a look at these patches? Daniel applied
the first trivial patch, but I'd like to get the others in as wel...

I've refreshed the patches against current trunk and re-attached them.
02-python-platform-providers.patch was changed to resolve a conflict
with r1235264.

Gr.

Matthijs

> For consistency, I've also fixed the
> svn_auth_get_platform_specific_client_providers bindings for python and
> ruby, even though I don't really require them.
>
> The more fun change is the addition of a new binding that allows you to
> set a gnome_keyring prompt function: Using this, git-svn can ask for a
> keyring unlock password if the keyring is not locked yet (fixing a
> long-standing annoyance where I previously had to open some GUI-thingy
> to unlock the keyring before using git-svn). Again, I've spent some time
> figuring out the python and ruby bindings as well, and made this work
> there too.
>
> All changes have been tested using two example scripts (needed changes
> included in the patches) for python and ruby and using git-svn for perl
> (for lack of any example scripts). The ruby example script is new, since
> there was no example that accessed a remote url yet. I also fixed the
> python example I used, since it didn't work on trunk.
>
> I've included testcases for perl and python, but my lacking Ruby skills
> didn't manage to produce testcases for Ruby (there's not much to test,
> anyway...)
>
> Patches are against svn trunk (r1227522), but also apply with just a
> single trivial conflict to 1.6.17.
>
> Let me know if there's any further improvments required.

Received on 2012-02-07 16:31:52 CET

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