Max Maischein wrote:
Hello Abe,
Hi Max,
Locally applied patches:
Your reports seem to miss the rather important information about
commit id. This seems to point at the fact that you do not have the
'.patch' file.

Can you tell me how you sync the source-tree so we can find a way to
fake the .patch file.
Ooops - yes, that was the one issue I wanted to remember before starting
to send reports outside :(

I'm copying a synced git tree with the following commands. The git repo
doesn't have the .patch and hence, things get interesting. I guess we
could (ab)use the code in make_patchnum.pl to find out the git
patchnumber for the current branch. ...
I haven't yet looked at what .patch should contain. I guess running
make_patchnum.pl with an installed perl instead of the just-built
miniperl should simply work, because all make_patchnum.pl does is run
git several times to extract the current state.
Nope, make_patchnum.pl provides de full sha1 for patchlevel.h

.patch is generated as part of the hole post-commit stuff for the rsync-archives.
you can either rsync it from rsync://perl5.git.perl.org/perl-current/.patch or ftp it with wget from

The .patch file contains 4 fields (branch, timestamp, sha1, git-describe). My choice to use the timestamp field, to identify the
commit in the subject of the reports, might not have been the smartest as the timestamp is generated by the post-commit handler and
not reproducible from the git repository (it's not the same stamp as the commit message).

I think I will be changing this, so we can reproduce these fields from the git repository.

thanks again for your interest in perl-core smoking +
good luck,

_ | "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
( ) | I think so, Brain, but if the plural of mouse is mice, wouldn't the
X | plural of spouse be spice? (27 Sep 97 - Brain Acres)
/ \ |

Search Discussions

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post

1 user in discussion

Abe Timmerman: 1 post



site design / logo © 2015 Grokbase