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

Chocolatey.bat doesn't exist in 0.9.8.24 #13870

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 7, 2014
Merged

Chocolatey.bat doesn't exist in 0.9.8.24 #13870

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 7, 2014

Conversation

Sacro
Copy link
Contributor

@Sacro Sacro commented Jul 7, 2014

Although we've covered the move to c:\ProgramData\Chocolatey, the batch file that Salt looks for is no longer provided.

Salt needs to support chocolatey.cmd in both folders also.

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 1, 2014

Thanks for the report.

@basepi basepi modified the milestones: Blocked, Approved Jul 1, 2014
@Sacro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sacro commented Jul 3, 2014

This need looking into rather soon, chocolatey is no longer working under salt otherwise :(

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 3, 2014

Ah, good point! I'll mark this as a bug instead of a feature. I wasn't paying very close attention when I originally triaged this one.

@basepi basepi added Bug and removed Feature labels Jul 3, 2014
@Sacro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sacro commented Jul 7, 2014

That will work for people running 0.8.23 and below in c:\chocolatey and people running 0.8.24 in c:\ProgramData\Chocolatey

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 7, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/5787/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 7, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/5807/

@basepi basepi removed Bug labels Jul 7, 2014
@basepi basepi removed this from the Approved milestone Jul 7, 2014
thatch45 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 7, 2014
Chocolatey.bat doesn't exist in 0.9.8.24
@thatch45 thatch45 merged commit 9dd4b4e into saltstack:develop Jul 7, 2014
@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

thatch45 commented Jul 7, 2014

Thanks for the catch @Sacro !!

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 7, 2014

So I swear Github is playing tricks on me, I'm not sure why I triaged this as an issue rather than a pull request. Looking back at the e-mail that Github sent me, it has none of the regular things that a pull request has, like the commit summary and whatnot. Weird.

Anyway, thanks for the addition, @Sacro. And the merge, @thatch45.

@basepi basepi removed the Windows label Jul 7, 2014
@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 7, 2014

@Sacro Did you convert this issue to a pull request using the API? Similar this this? http://opensoul.org/2012/11/09/convert-a-github-issue-into-a-pull-request/

Would explain my utter confusion as to how I managed to triage it as an issue, and would also explain why a pull request could be open for 6 days before getting a reply from Tom.

@Sacro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sacro commented Jul 8, 2014

Yes @basepi I used the 'hub' application. you didn't have a pull request for 6 days, I only sent that in yesterday. I'm a bit of a newbie to Git so I might have made a faux pas!

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 8, 2014

Hehe, I was just super confused, I triage and label issues but not pull requests.

In the future, I would recommend creating a separate pull request, and just linking to the issue in question. Keeps things cleaner, IMO.

@Sacro Sacro deleted the updating-chocolatey-extension branch July 17, 2014 15:06
@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 30, 2014

This does not apply cleanly to the 2014.1 branch, and since I'm not familiar with the code, I'm not going to cherry-pick it and risk breaking it.

@Sacro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sacro commented Jul 31, 2014

It should apply cleanly if you apply UtahDave@b024c9f first

@Sacro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sacro commented Jul 31, 2014

From issue - #13356

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Aug 1, 2014

@Sacro it did indeed, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ZZZ[Done]-back-ported-bf RETIRED The pull request has been back-ported to an older branch.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants