Dear Jeff,
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the initial patch that you sent
out. What i requested was when you take the difference, store the output in
a patch file and then send across. Just do the simple step:
1) diff -uprN "file-1" "file-2" > "your-patch-file-name.patch"
##Redirecting to
Dear Jeff,
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the initial patch that you sent
out. What i requested was when you take the difference, store the output in
a patch file and then send across. Just do the simple step:
1) diff -uprN "file-1" "file-2" > "your-patch-file-name.patch"
##Redirecting to
Bugs item #1694484, was opened at 2007-04-04 11:49
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by creese123
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=103382&aid=1694484&group_id=3382
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment t
Bugs item #1694484, was opened at 2007-04-04 11:49
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=103382&aid=1694484&group_id=3382
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
Subrata Modak1 wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Request you to kindly put the result of "diff -uprN" into a "
> .patch" and send across for this issue too.
>
>
> Regards & Thanks--
> Subrata Modak,
>
>
Subrata,
I have done
Subrata Modak1 wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Request you to kindly put the result of "diff -uprN" into a "
> .patch" and send across.
>
>
Subrata,
I have done what you requested. Here is the patch. Just out of
curiosity what was wrong with the last patch? The only diff between the
original one
Dear Jeff,
Request you to kindly put the result of "diff -uprN" into a "
.patch" and send across for this issue too.
Regards & Thanks--
Subrata Modak,
Dear Jeff,
Request you to kindly put the result of "diff -uprN" into a "
.patch" and send across.
Regards & Thanks--
Subrata Modak,
Folks,
This is a patch that was tested and applied against the 20070228
version of ltp-full. The basic change was removing LOCTMP and adding in
the LTPTMP in its place and clean up files when it is done. Basically
the patch is mostly noise, IMHO I made the code more readable.
Thanks,
Jeff
Folks,
Short version -
Changed the way runltp makes the temp directory that is uses for
running test. Plus some spacing, indent changes. This is a patch that
was tested and applied against the 20070228 version of ltp-full.
Long version -
This was the error scenario I hit. When ru
10 matches
Mail list logo