Re: [codepatch] Re: [discuss] block all hosts

Hey Chuck,

I'm sure there's other folks that are interested in some CVS pointers, 
as well as some talk of how to create patches for LW -- so the 
discussion is probably best kept to the list.  It's also good so that I 
don't accidentally lose track  -- someone else here can take over (or 
remind me).

The discussion is probably better suited to either 
[email protected] or [email protected], and the ultimate 
patch to [email protected] -- but discuss isn't "wrong" per 
say -- discuss has historically been for more business-oriented 
discussion, although all the lists have very low traffic, and I don't 
think anyone's complaining.

You can get a diff of the changes on the file-filter branch by using 
the cvs command:
  cvs diff -uNw -r file-filter-branch-point -r file-filter-branch > 
filter-changes.txt

(It may also be -r file-filter-branch -r file-filter-branch-point -- I 
can never remember the order.)

Once you get those changes, you can incorporate them into your local 
edits using:
  patch -p0 -i filter-changes.txt

Then, you can do a diff from your local copy to CVS head using
   cvs diff -uNw > all-changes.txt

The resulting all-changes.txt file should contain the diffs of both 
your local edits & the file-filter branch.

Hopefully that all made sense. :)

Thanks,
  Sam

On Apr 4, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Chuck McNulty wrote:

> Okay, nix the question on how to resolve merges, I've done that part.  
> At least I've resolved the conflicts between my versions and the 
> file-filter-branch versions.  I'm just not sure what to do next.  When 
> I did a diff it just did a diff between my changes to the 
> file-filter-branch.  I need to figure out how to get the diffs from 
> the file-filter-branch (including my changes) and the main trunk.  Any 
> advise is welcome.
>
> Also, should I take this discussion off of discuss@lists?  Should it 
> be on another list?  Should I just be sending these questions to you, 
> Sam?
>
> -Chuck
>
> Chuck McNulty wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam and all,
>>
>> Okay, this is kinda fun learning so I'm going to go for it.  I have a 
>> few questions and they're not really LimeWire specific I think, but 
>> you've been so helpful and patient, what the heck...
>>
>> Like I mentioned earlier I'm still learning CVS, and I'm using 
>> WinCVS, which is probably an unhelpful crutch in terms of learning 
>> it, but whatever.  I think I've pretty much got checking out a 
>> branch, and I see that when I did that, there were some conflicts 
>> where I'd already made changes (to the block all hosts 
>> functionality).  I assume that the next step after I resolve these 
>> conflicts is to do a merge of the file-filter-branch with the main 
>> trunk on my own local copies resolve those conflict, and then do a 
>> diff to submit to you.  Does that make sense?
>>
>> If so, my question (and it's a total newbie question) is how I go 
>> about "resolving the conflicts"  Here is the first conflict, for 
>> instance, in ResultPanel.java:
>>
>> import java.awt.event.MouseListener;
>> import java.io.IOException;
>> import java.util.Date;
>> <<<<<<< ResultPanel.java
>> import java.util.Iterator;
>> =======
>> import java.util.ArrayList;
>> import java.util.Arrays;
>> >>>>>>> 1.140.26.2
>> import java.util.LinkedList;
>> import java.util.List;
>> import java.util.Set;
>>
>> Is "resolving the conflicts" just taking out the <<<, ===, and >>>> 
>> lines with a text editor and making sure it still works?  Or is there 
>> some interactive CVS tool that I should be using to resolve the 
>> conflicts?  I think that's it...
>>
>>
>> After that, the next thing I'm really excited about adding to 
>> LimeWire, if it would be accepted (and maybe into my own version in 
>> either case) is a new window that displays the bitzi info without 
>> having to open up a browser window (with all of it's accompanying 
>> advertising).  I'd do it by using bitzi's XML format:  
>> http://bitzi.com/developer/xml  I'm assuming here that LimeWire 
>> doesn't have a financial partnership or arrangement with bitzi for a 
>> share of their ad dollars.  I can certainly understand not wanting to 
>> add this functionality if that's the case, and I certainly don't 
>> object to LimeWire trying to make a buck, but if not it could really 
>> be a nice little feature.
>>
>> -Chuck
>>
>> Sam Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Charles,
>>>
>>>> Is there anything I could do to move along merging in the work that 
>>>> has already been done to block files?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you'd like, you can incorporate the code that was on the branch 
>>> for hashing files into your patch, and then we can merge the whole 
>>> blocking shebang at once.
>>>
>>> > Here is the code... basically (current < total) never seems to 
>>> evaluate to true.
>>>
>>> The 'filtered' display will only be shown if you use the 'filter 
>>> results' tab on the left of the search results.  The GUI doesn't 
>>> keep track of results that the core has thrown away (because they 
>>> were blocked).
>>>
>>>> In a related issue, does LimeWire really want to report the total 
>>>> number of all hosts (including alternates) in the tab title?  It 
>>>> seems to me that it would make more sense to only show the number 
>>>> of unique results, as that is a much more meaningful number for the 
>>>> end user.  I could fix that pretty easily I think.  Would a patch 
>>>> for that be accepted?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We used to display the unique results, but after 'filter results' 
>>> were added, we changed to the number of sources.  Users like seeing 
>>> high numbers. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Sam
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.limewire.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.limewire.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.limewire.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss