Pavel Roskin [off-list ref] writes:
Don't assume that unsupported versions are too old, they may be too new.
Excuse me, but we never assumed such.
Neither too old nor too new ones are proven to work with us yet, so we
cannot be call them supported.
Let's apply your patch and see how well version 2.2 fares.
Thanks.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh b/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
index 655f882..f92b47a 100755
--- a/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
+++ b/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
@@ -20,13 +20,15 @@ cvsps_version=`cvsps -h 2>&1 | sed -ne 's/cvsps version //p'`
case "$cvsps_version" in
2.1)
;;
+2.2*)
+ ;;
Hmm, I would have written:
case "$..." in
2.1 | 2.2 )
Is the reason why you have the asterisk there because the beta one claims
"2.2beta" or something (I am not suggesting to tighten the match, just
asking for information)?
Quoting Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:
Pavel Roskin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Don't assume that unsupported versions are too old, they may be too new.
Excuse me, but we never assumed such.
Neither too old nor too new ones are proven to work with us yet, so we
cannot be call them supported.
The message was "skipping cvsimport tests, cvsps too old" so the
assumption was there.
Let's apply your patch and see how well version 2.2 fares.
Thanks.
quoted
diff --git a/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh b/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
index 655f882..f92b47a 100755
--- a/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
+++ b/t/t9600-cvsimport.sh
@@ -20,13 +20,15 @@ cvsps_version=`cvsps -h 2>&1 | sed -ne 's/cvsps
version //p'`
case "$cvsps_version" in
2.1)
;;
+2.2*)
+ ;;
Hmm, I would have written:
case "$..." in
2.1 | 2.2 )
Fine with me, but please allow for extra specifiers.
Is the reason why you have the asterisk there because the beta one claims
"2.2beta" or something (I am not suggesting to tighten the match, just
asking for information)?
It's cvsps 2.2b1 from Fedora Development (cvsps-2.2-0.1.b1.fc10.x86_64)
$ cvsps -h 2>&1 | grep version
cvsps version 2.2b1
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:51:14PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
quoted
Excuse me, but we never assumed such.
Neither too old nor too new ones are proven to work with us yet, so we
cannot be call them supported.
The message was "skipping cvsimport tests, cvsps too old" so the
assumption was there.
Heh, you can blame me for making that assumption. But at the time I
wrote it, I think cvsps development had stagnated, so there weren't new
versions. :)
-Peff