Conversation
sync.py
Outdated
| subprocess.check_call(shlex.split('git clone --depth 1 git@github.com:{}/{}.git'.format(ORGANIZATION, self.name)), cwd=self.clone_dir) | ||
| subprocess.check_call(shlex.split('git clone --depth {} git@github.com:{}/{}.git'.format(self.sync_depth, ORGANIZATION, self.name)), cwd=self.clone_dir) | ||
| if init_submodules and self._has_submodules(): | ||
| self.check_call(shlex.split('git submodule update --depth 1 --init --jobs 8')) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the same depth apply to this? Should we have a different parameter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same depth. There shouldn't be any need for a separate one.
|
ref. #42. Also, this is completely untested. |
sushain97
left a comment
sushain97
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good aside from the minor nit. Should indeed be tested :)
sync.py
Outdated
| self.name = name | ||
| self.submodules = submodules | ||
| self.author = author | ||
| self.sync_depth = sync_depth |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mind changing this to just depth? The sync prefix inside the sync class is a bit redundant.
|
I can test this on mock-apertium. What depths should I test with (i.e., what is the problem that this is supposed to solve)? |
|
I think the problem is when things get into an inconsistent state and |
|
@sushain97 Ping about testing this. |
|
Yeah I'm a bit anal-retentive so I deleted it right after the real one was
created. I suppose you can recreate?
…On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:41 AM Shardul Chiplunkar ***@***.***> wrote:
@sushain97 <https://github.com/sushain97> Ping about testing this.
mock-apertium has been deleted?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#44 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEBEfnOjC8mprQif4Uz6fy7Z5RXmKq_Kks5tn4PTgaJpZM4TBKc->
.
|
2 participants
No description provided.