[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'. |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:51:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) |
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 08:47:54PM CET:
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:30PM CET:
> > > Pinging the patch again, following this:
> > >
> > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-11/msg00003.html>
> > > Note that this patch is based off of master, not of maint, for reasons
> > > stated here:
> > >
> > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00180.html>
> > >
> > > OK to push?
> >
> > Hmm, I didn't have this one on my radar any more. I think that's
> > because in:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00172.html
> > I OKed the patch with nits addressed. There was some more discussion
> > about things after that, but AFAICS you did not post a new full patch.
> Yes, because you told me once (cannot remember exactly when) that if I
> addressed objections from a reviwer exactly in the way suggested by him,
> there was no need to re-post a full amended patch.
Sure; when I say "OK with nits addressed" then I mean that you don't
need to ask for approval again after fixing the nits; you can just go
ahead and commit the patch. If OTOH you would like another review,
then that is very much helped by seeing an updated version of the patch.
;-)
> Also, you said that this patch was somewhat invasive and required some
> more testing, so I did the all the testsing I could before asking for
> the final blessing:
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00192.html>
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00223.html>
Which is all good. Thanks.
> > If you'd like me to take another look, please post the patch as you
> > intend to push it.
> There should be no need of this, as the patch is unchanged except for
> rebasing (which triggered no conflicts, and left the testsuite pass).
Well, then feel free to go! :-)
> > Also, in above message I suggested an optimization of your patch; please
> > indicate whether you intend to work on it.
> Yes, I was planning to do that (in a temporary branch) after the present
> patch is applied.
Cool.
Thank you,
Ralf