Hi On 06/11/2014 04:42 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote: > My general preferences are for more aggressive and detailed checks. > > For example, in the dist tag script there are extra checks that are, > strictly speaking, unnecessary (lines 64-66). > > Since shell scripts are difficult to generate unit tests, I tend towards > extra stuff to hopefully make sure my behaviour is as expected. > > Mike's quick patch for my typos shows my humanity and why my code > _always_ needs extra error checking. :) > > my $0.02, more sanity checks == better > ok, SPECS/ would need to exist for it to be a centos git repo anyway, adding this in > Pat > > > On 06/11/2014 10:32 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> Hi Pat, >> >> Mike and I were talking about this - it might be enough to just check >> for the metadata file and the .git, you agree ? >> >> >> On 06/11/2014 04:21 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote: >>> From: Pat Riehecky <riehecky at fnal.gov> >>> >>> I've found a few repos without a SOURCES directory. >>> >>> For example, kpatch source cannot be fetched without this patch. >>> >>> Pat Riehecky (1): >>> Fixed so it works on kpatch golang-* >>> >>> get_sources.sh | 3 ++- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS-devel mailing list >>> CentOS-devel at centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >>> >> > > -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc