JuliaWeb / GnuTLS.jl

Transport Level Security for Julia Streams provided by GnuTLS
Other
8 stars 13 forks source link

per https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/2af73dd7723c91b0e9fcf5af76... #38

Closed sbromberger closed 9 years ago

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

...62b40c8fb97067#commitcomment-9805503 - changing Base.write back to Int64

per https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/2af73dd7723c91b0e9fcf5af7662b40c8fb97067#commitcomment-9805503 - changing Base.write to Int (was originally Int64, now using system dependent return type for 32-bit compatibility).

coveralls commented 9 years ago

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 47.83% when pulling 28937018540e74c1f08165bfcf3934c48e36a8b1 on sab/hotfix2 into 23156e651cf7353da5e779619addab34d22b3b81 on master.

staticfloat commented 9 years ago

I'd be very happy to see this get merged so that my coverage jobs can go through. :)

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

Is that travis failure due this PR being rebased on something before the uint thing was fixed?

staticfloat commented 9 years ago

It's probably because the julianightlies PPA didn't have the fix built into them yet. I'll restart the builds since we've got 2-hour old binaries now.

staticfloat commented 9 years ago

I can't restart the build since I'm not a manager of this repository. I feel like a normal plebian once again! ;)

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

Restarted now!

staticfloat commented 9 years ago

w00t. Thanks, looks like the pr build passed.

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

Sorry for the delay - yes; it's exactly because I was waiting for @JeffBezanson's fix, which I assume is now in nightly. Let me see why the first travis build failed, though.

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

I don't get this new travis thing exactly. So the PR, as based on whatever its based on, passes. But the PR, as merged into master, doesn't pass?

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

I don't understand the difference either. The failure logs show a problem with the cfunction return type, which is exactly what we're trying to fix. So is the fix working or not?

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

Can you rebase this PR on the head of master, if it isn't already? If its rebased on top of master it should not return different statuses.

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

I don't know enough git to do that. It's in its own branch....

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

Crap, I think I accidentally merged this. Sorry. Should we assume it works or is there a way to back it out?

staticfloat commented 9 years ago

Travis builds the state of the current branch, as well as the state of master after merging this branch in. You would have to restart both separate builds, but I believe Ian only restarted one. That being said, it looks like this didn't break anything, so I'm happy.

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

No its OK, master is building

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

Yeah :)

IainNZ commented 9 years ago

@sbromberger want to tag new version?

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

Sure. Stand by.

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

Dodged a bullet with that merge. Really sorry about that. I should brush up on git. Pkg.publish() on v0.0.3 is running as I type this.

sbromberger commented 9 years ago

Ok, it's PRed: https://github.com/JuliaLang/METADATA.jl/pull/2178