Re: [PATCH] Two changes to the gem list command

Thanks for your feedback. You're right, the diffs are not correctly formatted for SVN, sorry about that. I've made the output from `svn diff` available here: http://pastie.org/246285 (includes both patches)

About the return code, I'm not entirely sure on 1 either. I saw 2 and 4 were used elsewere in the source - I'll leave that decision to someone else. The important thing is that it doesn't return 0, though.

 - Bjørn

2008/8/2 Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I haven't looked closely, but I think these are good patches.

I tried these, and they don't appear to break my API interaction or
the rubygems test suite.  They gave some minor problems applying, I
don't know if this is the way github makes diffs or what.

Anway, they seem good to apply, if Eric thinks so.

-- Chad
_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
Rubygems-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers

_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
Rubygems-developers-GrnCvJ7WPxnNLxjTenLetw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers