On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 20:26 -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
> I realize I'm talking to myself at this point (last post, promise), but
> my last message failed to explain the paste at the top. On a box without
> svk, using the 0.4.0 released tarball, all is fine (t/perl/manifest.t is
> skipped/faile
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 02:18 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2005, at 0:29, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
> On that hardware it certainly shouldn't need minutes to finish. It's
> just strange:
> This is on a PowerBook G4 with 1.2 GHz - certainly not a fast system,
> ~7 seconds for the test
I realize I'm talking to myself at this point (last post, promise), but
my last message failed to explain the paste at the top. On a box without
svk, using the 0.4.0 released tarball, all is fine (t/perl/manifest.t is
skipped/failed quickly). However, if a user has svk installed and
attempts to run
On 12/6/05, Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 18:38 -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
> t/perl/manifest..Can't exec "svk": No such file or
> directory at t/perl/manifest.t line 38.
> ok
> 1/3 skipped: Not a working copy
>
> Not a patch, b
On Dec 7, 2005, at 0:29, Michael Cummings wrote:
Problem is the diag message warning users that it will take a while
(and
it does - on a p4 with 2 gigs of ram i gave up after a few minutes
On that hardware it certainly shouldn't need minutes to finish. It's
just strange:
$ time perl -Ilib
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 18:38 -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
t/perl/manifest..Can't exec "svk": No such file or
directory at t/perl/manifest.t line 38.
ok
1/3 skipped: Not a working copy
Not a patch, but a better explanation of the problem. There is a false
assumption in
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 21:13 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > If it helps - the t/perl/manifest test hangs on test 3. Looking at the
> > source, looks like someone intended a diag message to warn that it
> > would
> > appear to hang, but the diag doesn't get printed out until after the
> > fact.
>
