Re: [PATCH 3/4] remote-hg: fix 'shared path' path
- From
Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 13, 2013, 17:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALWbr2wkSNDh2VTz05sndymUe=fOsApMrg6Jjp0a6mbEfhru=g@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1386421783-27781-4-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> If the repository is moved, the absolute path of the shared repository > would fail. > > Make sure it's always up-to-date. > > Reported-by: Michael Davis <mjmdavis@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> > --- > contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg > index aa1d230..718ef95 100755 > --- a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg > +++ b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-hg > @@ -416,6 +416,9 @@ def get_repo(url, alias): > local_path = os.path.join(dirname, 'clone') > if not os.path.exists(local_path): > hg.share(myui, shared_path, local_path, update=False) > + else: > + # make sure the shared path is always up-to-date > + util.writefile(os.path.join(local_path, '.hg', 'sharedpath'), hg_path)
Considering this is modifying a "private mercurial file", would it make sense to include a test like I did in my equivalent patch ?