[erlang-patches] trivial bug in jinterface

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

Ok, thanks. This syntax is not described in the how-to, and it should
probably be, because it's easier to not forget to update the default branch
at github

I updated the wiki with the following:

Additionally include the following two links for viewing the changes:
<pre>
https://github.com/mygithub/otp/compare/erlang:BASE...my-cool-updates
https://github.com/mygithub/otp/compare/erlang:BASE...my-cool-updates.patch
</pre>
where BASE should be the base branch, @maint@ or @master@REDACTED

/Vlad



On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Fredrik <fredrik@REDACTED> wrote:

>  On 02/01/2013 11:37 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  It already is on master (but I just had some git issues, so you might
> have to refetch).
>
>  /Vlad
>
>
>  On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Fredrik <fredrik@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>>  On 02/01/2013 11:13 AM, Nico Kruber wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 01 Feb 2013 09:58:54 Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I found a small problem in jinterface. It has been around for a while
>>>> now,
>>>> it happens in a corner case that probably nobody ever uses.
>>>>
>>>> In OtpErlangTuple(OtpErlangObject[], int, int), when the size of the
>>>> slice
>>>> used is 0, then the elems fields remains uninitialized, it is the
>>>> parameter
>>>> that gets assigned.
>>>>
>>>> I used master as base, I hope it's still possible to do that.
>>>>
>>>> git fetch git://github.com/vladdu/otp.git tuple_constructor_bug
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/vladdu/otp/compare/tuple_constructor_bug
>>>> https://github.com/vladdu/otp/compare/tuple_constructor_bug.patch
>>>>
>>>> Given that there are no other tests for jinterface at this level, do you
>>>> want me to write one for this case?
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>> your branch is outdated so the diff is not clean, i.e. contains a lot of
>>> other
>>> commits
>>> ->  please rebase your branch
>>> see https://github.com/erlang/otp/wiki/Submitting-patches
>>>
>>> it would probably also be good to base it on maint - but someone from
>>> the otp
>>> team needs to decide here :)
>>>
>>> your commit though seems reasonable
>>>
>>> https://github.com/vladdu/otp/commit/ee29a8aa733fbf1a1666b2f85a9fd6ff19d777b3
>>>
>>>
>>> Nico
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-patches mailing list
>>> erlang-patches@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
>>>
>>  Hello,
>> Just rebase it on master will work fine for me.
>>
>> --
>>
>> BR Fredrik Gustafsson
>> Erlang OTP Team
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-patches mailing list
>> erlang-patches@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
>>
>
>  Re-fetched the patch, I don't remember how the how-to is describing on
> the comparison-links but you should write it like this instead
> https://github.com/vladdu/otp/compare/erlang:master...tuple_constructor_bug
> So,
> the branch you are based upon should be in the link ('erlang:master...' or
> when it is maint 'erlang:maint...').
> This will make a proper link for us to examine.
>
>
> --
>
> BR Fredrik Gustafsson
> Erlang OTP Team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/attachments/20130201/d372138b/attachment.htm>