On Feb 3, 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
>> +BRANCHES=`svnlook -r ${REV} dirs-changed "${REPOS}" \
> Do we really need to worry about more than branch being hit in one
> commit? I wasn't aware that SVN supports this, but I guess it's
> defensive progra
Hi all,
Here is the update patch.
*) Remove IGNORE_BRANCHES
*) Add BRANCH_REGEXP
*) Remove '-n' from echo command line, use the original DATESTAMP format
*) Update PATH as Gerald recommend
*) Fix a typo in patch of hooks/post-commit
*) Write svn commit error messages to svn client as Gerald recom
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
> Index: hooks/update_datestamp
> ===
> --- hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
> +++ hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +REPOS="$1"
> +REV="$2"
Dongsheng Song writes:
> + echo -n ${CURR_DATE} > gcc/DATESTAMP
What's the point of -n?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 22:00, Paul Koning wrote:
> No. Subversion specifically documents the fact that a pre-commit hook can't
> change the transaction; it can only inspect it.
>
> paul
>
Yes, here is a pilot post commit hook for bumping DATESTAMP:
pos
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
> The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
>
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
>> >> The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
>> >> nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea wh
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
> >> The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
> >> nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
> >> this is technically possible of course.
> > Yes,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 23:32, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
>>> The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
>>> nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
>>> this is technically possible of course.
>> Yes, the post-commi
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
>> The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
>> nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
>> this is technically possible of course.
> Yes, the post-commit hook can do this task.
> If we really want to do that, I
10 matches
Mail list logo
