Paul Cochrane wrote:
> I couldn't get your patch to apply cleanly and so hacked it in by
> hand. I'm attaching a new patch to this email (which is quite
> possibly identical to yours) so that you can give it a quick test. If
> all is happy, then I'll commit the change and close the ticket.
I lo
Ron,
>> I simple changed the backward slashes to forward slashes, thus forward
>> slashes everywhere.
>
> Which was what *I* intended to do with my patch, but after staring at
> it long enough, I realised that's not what *it* was saying! :-)
> Ooops.
Oh, I see. Sorry I didn't get this right.
Paul Cochrane wrote:
>> > But if we convert what MANIFEST provides (i.e. Unix directory
>> > separators) into whatever the current platform needs (i.e. what
>> > canonpath() does) then it should agree with whatever svn spits out.
>> > Or am I missing something?
>>
>> No, that's exactly what I think
> But if we convert what MANIFEST provides (i.e. Unix directory
> separators) into whatever the current platform needs (i.e. what
> canonpath() does) then it should agree with whatever svn spits out.
> Or am I missing something?
No, that's exactly what I think needs to be done. In the patch
cano
Paul Cochrane wrote:
> On 11/06/07, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> jerry gay wrote:
>> > On 6/11/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Attached pat
On 11/06/07, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jerry gay wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
>> >
>> > > Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashe
On 11/06/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/11/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
> >
> > > Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
> >
> > Woul
jerry gay wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
>> >
>> > > Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
>> >
>> > Would using File::Spec be less
On 6/11/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
>
> > Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
>
> Would using File::Spec be less fragile?
I've attached a patch whi
On 09/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
> Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
Would using File::Spec be less fragile?
I've attached a patch which uses File::Spec instead of replacing one
set of slashes w
chromatic wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
Would using File::Spec be less fragile?
The problem basically boils down to matching a list of MANIFEST (UNIX?)
files with the (native file name, attribute) o
On Friday 09 March 2007 05:00, Ron Blaschke wrote:
> Attached patch replaces the backslashes with slashes on Windows.
Would using File::Spec be less fragile?
-- c
On 09/03/07, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will Coleda wrote:
> I expect the first two to pass, but metadata is often often overlooked
> on commits.
>
> The last one is a new test, not everything has been updated yet. (And
> I'm not sure it *can* be without breaking windows).
>
> Should
Will Coleda wrote:
I expect the first two to pass, but metadata is often often overlooked
on commits.
The last one is a new test, not everything has been updated yet. (And
I'm not sure it *can* be without breaking windows).
Should be passing the second test again as of r17398.
Thanks for y
I expect the first two to pass, but metadata is often often
overlooked on commits.
The last one is a new test, not everything has been updated yet. (And
I'm not sure it *can* be without breaking windows).
Should be passing the second test again as of r17398.
On Mar 8, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Ro
Hi,
Could someone please tell me the expected result of
t/distro/file_metadata.pl at revision 17389? After looking into bug
#41569 I'm getting the following on Windows (XP, SP2, VC++ 8.0, Subversion).
>prove t/distro/file_metadata.t
t/distro/file_metadata# Collecting svn:mime-type attr
16 matches
Mail list logo
