Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use commit timestamp #63

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 21, 2016
Merged

Conversation

jblunck
Copy link
Contributor

@jblunck jblunck commented Dec 16, 2014

This branch depends on fix_hgtest branch. Additionally to that I'm going to refactor the additional unittest after merging the fix_include_exclude branch.

For an enterprise setup it is important that the generated tarballs are binary identical if they are generated from the same source revision. This commit makes tar_scm use the commit timestamp as a reference for the mtime of the files included in the tarball. The unittest is using a fixed, well known value instead to check that the mtime is taken from the source repository.

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Dec 16, 2014

Please ping me when this is passing tests and ready to review!

@jblunck jblunck force-pushed the use_commit_timestamp branch 2 times, most recently from 2c3f318 to dcdf8e5 Compare December 16, 2014 13:22
@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented May 27, 2015

OK, other than the 'bazar' typo this looks excellent! Is it ready to merge?

@jblunck jblunck force-pushed the use_commit_timestamp branch 2 times, most recently from 35f1455 to 8a54147 Compare June 5, 2015 16:52
@jblunck
Copy link
Contributor Author

jblunck commented Jun 5, 2015

@aspiers Do you understand why this fails? Travis reports that python-dateutil is installed successfully ...

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Jun 16, 2015

@jblunck I have no idea :-(

@olafhering
Copy link
Contributor

Any news on this? Not sure about the failure. looks like python-2.6 is used but later python 2.7 is referenced?

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Sep 21, 2015

@olafhering Good catch - that's exactly the problem. The bug was introduced by #73 but sadly Travis CI didn't catch it at the time; the Travis environment happened to have Python 2.7, but when it was accidentally used it worked due to lack of any external module dependencies.

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Sep 21, 2015

Proposed solution in #82. Any volunteers? :)

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Nov 1, 2015

#82 is now fixed; please can you rebase this? Thanks!

@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Apr 1, 2016

@jblunck Do you think you'll be able to rebase this?

This is the required preparation of the framework for the tests that check
tar_scm for always creating a binary identical tarball from the same commit.

Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Otherwise the tarball will not be binary identical even if it is created
from the same source tag. In some cases this will lead to unnecessary
rebuilds.

Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Mercurial has a bug in the localdate filter that makes it
apply the current offset from UTC to historic timestamps
for timezones that have daylight savings enabled.

Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
@aspiers
Copy link
Member

aspiers commented Jun 21, 2016

Again, I have no clue why I didn't notice this was rebased. Maybe there is some issue with how I receive github notifications, but it seems to work fine everywhere else. Anyway sorry for the delay, and thanks a lot for your great contribution!

@aspiers aspiers merged commit 5edf459 into openSUSE:master Jun 21, 2016
aspiers added a commit to aspiers/obs-service-tar_scm that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2016
Unfortunately Travis CI missed this because it deliberately doesn't
retest the updated merge commit GitHub generates when a PR is updated:

https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests#My-Pull-Request-isn%E2%80%99t-being-built
aspiers added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2016
fix breakage from conflict of #63 and #85
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants