Ryan Schmidt writes:
>> That sounds right. What I'm attempting to improve (or, rather, stir up
>> awareness) are the many steps that are manual. Being that stealth
>> updates are infrequent, I usually forgot to check for them. I think
>>
>> A workflow I am trying to strive for (which maybe shou
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 8:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>
> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>
* It assumes the port's revision will be increased. That's not always
necessary. Sometimes the only change in the distfile is the name of (or
presence of) the enclosing directory, or there are only c
Ryan Schmidt writes:
>>> * It assumes the port's revision will be increased. That's not always
>>> necessary. Sometimes the only change in the distfile is the name of (or
>>> presence of) the enclosing directory, or there are only changes in comments
>>> or documentation files or other files t
On Sep 30, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>
>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>>> As for this exact issue, it could be something as simple as a fallback
>>> test:
>>>
>>> if checksum doesn't match and revision is new:
>>> try downloading again
Ryan Schmidt writes:
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> As for this exact issue, it could be something as simple as a fallback
>> test:
>>
>> if checksum doesn't match and revision is new:
>> try downloading again
>> write state so we don't download in an infinite loop
>
>
On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> As for this exact issue, it could be something as simple as a fallback
> test:
>
> if checksum doesn't match and revision is new:
> try downloading again
> write state so we don't download in an infinite loop
That's a conceivable change. But l
Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> It's still not totally automatic: the developer still has to update the
>> checksums, so if the developer is sufficiently aware that the checksums need
>> to be updated, why can't the developer also follow the st
On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> It's still not totally automatic: the developer still has to update the
> checksums, so if the developer is sufficiently aware that the checksums need
> to be updated, why can't the developer also follow the stealth update recipe?
> This ha
On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> it wouldn't be horrible if setting a revision just changed dist_subdir
>>> automatically (even when it's not necessary), which I
On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> it wouldn't be horrible if setting a revision just changed dist_subdir
>> automatically (even when it's not necessary), which I think is what Sean was
>> suggesting.
>
> In addition, a s
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> it wouldn't be horrible if setting a revision just changed dist_subdir
> automatically (even when it's not necessary), which I think is what Sean was
> suggesting.
In addition, a stealth update does not imply that the revision needs to be
i
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
Anyone who had the previous file, including our automated systems, will
now encounter a checksum mismatch. To fix this please
On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>> Anyone who had the previous file, including our automated systems, will now
>>> encounter a checksum mismatch. To fix this please follow the recipe for
>>> stealth updates:
>>>
>>> http://
On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>
>> Anyone who had the previous file, including our automated systems, will now
>> encounter a checksum mismatch. To fix this please follow the recipe for
>> stealth updates:
>>
>> http://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRe
Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone who had the previous file, including our automated systems, will now
>>> encounter a checksum mismatch. To fix this please follow the recipe for
>>> stealth updates:
>>>
>>> http://trac.macports.org/wiki/P
On Aug 11, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> Anyone who had the previous file, including our automated systems, will now
>> encounter a checksum mismatch. To fix this please follow the recipe for
>> stealth updates:
>>
>> http://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#stealth-updates
>
stropy: updated checksums following change in tar file
>> Modified Paths
>>
>> • trunk/dports/python/py-astropy/Portfile
>> Diff
>>
>> Modified: trunk/dports/python/py-astropy/Portfile (123601 => 123602)
>>
>> --- trunk/dports/python/py-ast
fied Paths
>
> • trunk/dports/python/py-astropy/Portfile
> Diff
>
> Modified: trunk/dports/python/py-astropy/Portfile (123601 => 123602)
>
> --- trunk/dports/python/py-astropy/Portfile 2014-08-11 14:32:31 UTC (rev
> 123601)
> +++ trunk/dports/python/py-astro
18 matches
Mail list logo
