Re: [gitorious] Missing tag 2.1.0 in mainline?
Talk about the update, this totally borked my install: * One of the modules require gem 1.8.11 * will_paginate version 3.x is install but 2.3.x is compatible with rails 2.3 * After a bundle update, I can't run this anymore. The error I got: --- Ruby on Rails application could not be started Error message: uninitialized constant ActiveMessaging::Processor Exception class: NameError Application root: /var/www/gitorious Backtrace: #FileLineLocation 0 /var/www/gitorious/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb 440in `load_missing_constant' 1 /var/www/gitorious/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb 80in `const_missing' 2/var/www/gitorious/lib/gitorious/messaging/stomp_adapter.rb78 .. No logs on the log folder, this is an instant error from apache. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. On 21/10/2011 17:20, Stefan Hoth wrote: Hi, I was excited to read your news! http://blog.gitorious.org/2011/10/20/a-little-help-from-our-friends/ But I can't find the tag for 2.1.0 in the mainline repository. Will you add it? Thanks for the awesome update, Stefan -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: [gitorious] Missing tag 2.1.0 in mainline?
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Wari Wahab wari.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about the update, this totally borked my install: Which update is that - we didn't push a tag? * One of the modules require gem 1.8.11 * will_paginate version 3.x is install but 2.3.x is compatible with rails 2.3 Gemfile.lock specifies will_paginate 2.3.15, how did you end up with 3.x? https://gitorious.org/gitorious/mainline/blobs/master/Gemfile.lock#line104 * After a bundle update, I can't run this anymore. The error I got: Did you run bundle update? Why? Cheers, - Marius -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: [gitorious] Missing tag 2.1.0 in mainline?
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Wari Wahab wari.wa...@gmail.com wrote: ** YES! My bad! Thanks for the clue :) Worked again for me. Ah, great! PS: Are you going to incorporate Martin's work with authenticated bind? Or at least allow non encrypted LDAP queries. I had to change lib/gitorious/authentication/ldap_authentication.rb: @encryption = (options[encryption] || simple_tls).to_sym to @encryption = options[encryption].to_sym if options.key?(encryption) In order to get auth to work for my case. Hmm, seems like Net::LDAP doesn't let us pass anything to disable encryption altogether - so your change sounds reasonable (although authenticating over an encrypted line doesn't :-) ). Mind submitting a merge request for that? As for the authenticated bind I will accept a merge request as long as it: - doesn't break any of the tests - contains a test case that will fail if we happen to break the functionality down the road Cheers, - Marius -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: [gitorious] Missing tag 2.1.0 in mainline?
Tag is out! https://gitorious.org/gitorious/pages/Upgrading Christian On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 14:13, Marius Mårnes Mathiesen marius.mathie...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Wari Wahab wari.wa...@gmail.com wrote: ** YES! My bad! Thanks for the clue :) Worked again for me. Ah, great! PS: Are you going to incorporate Martin's work with authenticated bind? Or at least allow non encrypted LDAP queries. I had to change lib/gitorious/authentication/ldap_authentication.rb: @encryption = (options[encryption] || simple_tls).to_sym to @encryption = options[encryption].to_sym if options.key?(encryption) In order to get auth to work for my case. Hmm, seems like Net::LDAP doesn't let us pass anything to disable encryption altogether - so your change sounds reasonable (although authenticating over an encrypted line doesn't :-) ). Mind submitting a merge request for that? As for the authenticated bind I will accept a merge request as long as it: - doesn't break any of the tests - contains a test case that will fail if we happen to break the functionality down the road Cheers, - Marius -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -- MVH Christian -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
