From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lea Wiemann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gitweb: use Git.pm, and use its parse_rev method for git_get_head_hash Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:44:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4842C3F1.5000001@gmail.com> References: <20080531130450.GI18781@machine.or.cz> <1212243564-30109-1-git-send-email-LeWiemann@gmail.com> <7vzlq5bm32.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 01 17:46:23 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K2plG-0004fP-RX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:46:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751927AbYFAPo4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:44:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751881AbYFAPo4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:44:56 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:11490 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751687AbYFAPo4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:44:56 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so532019fgg.17 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; bh=A3g6Qc+/z3c+iZMgIJ2PIKN4oLLJsWa6dCN3jlV4NqA=; b=UmxTaqFtSKE2SeuUhbjxRTd4SoUNH1kpWaJA7a3VoJPECXj3pwTFdn3EnxrpvRrq2z5A2mVWLC90DTtXRXK8ToayYB1JRZPpthIkdrU9s1nx4AdFejYc3SpokAjroCJ/IaCj434sBvYAn5UBm6s//54iMuf/xZhP0c8a4d3b1/U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=n5b1re6Axl/Gx2gISikXtOBF0wy3KMzFJg3APC7Ii+BvUXMo/XL5PvrDNUbYJhXp+6/hfj1M9+0yffgIqHNFbbxq1jLcTAkFxQlvj2/VOu5715cRB0XpY/nEAqI/xI+poPQPQ/0v0gryU/EdUN+wncKCnhtzzmU8AVnIV2xivkU= Received: by 10.86.98.14 with SMTP id v14mr4126516fgb.74.1212335094484; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.23.50? ( [91.33.205.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm2435834fga.8.2008.06.01.08.44.52 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) In-Reply-To: <7vzlq5bm32.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > With this on top of your parse_rev patch (I used v2 but I do not think v3 > changes the situation in any way), you seem to have broken t9500. > > [...] I suspect that you are not using your own Git in the build tree in > your test, but an already installed one. That was indeed the case, thanks for pointing it out! However, after applying my two patches and your patch on a pristine current git.git clone, I still don't get an error, even though the Gitweb test uses the new Git.pm (which I tested it does). Care to send me your error message so I can track it down, or even upload your complete tree somewhere? Feel free to reply off-list or ping me on IRC. > +++ b/t/t9500-gitweb-standalone-no-errors.sh > > + PERL5LIB=$(pwd)/../../perl/blib/lib How about putting this into test-lib.sh? There are more tests (like my new Git.pm test suite) that will need it, so setting it up in a central place would probably more convenient and prevent future problems of this sort. If PERL5LIB already contains paths, can we just discard them, or should we preserve them? Since perl/Makefile only copies Git.pm to blib/lib/Git.pm, we could also set the path to ../../perl, which would prevent us from accidentally running tests against an old version of Git.pm (because we haven't run cd perl; make before). And perhaps add a comment to perl/Makefile about this, in case someone wants to change the build process in the future. Or is there some reason why this would be a bad idea? -- Lea