From: Lea Wiemann Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:44:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gitweb: use Git.pm, and use its parse_rev method for git_get_head_hash Message-ID: <4842C3F1.5000001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7vzlq5bm32.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> 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