bug-grep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Applying outstanding patches [was: Release what we've got?]


From: Julian Foad
Subject: Re: Applying outstanding patches [was: Release what we've got?]
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:23:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217

Charles Levert wrote:
* On Tuesday 2005-06-14 at 00:26:06 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
I have applied those that I felt happy with.

On your personal copy, right?  I haven't seen
anything in CVS yet.

No, in CVS. See the ChangeLog entries from April, and see how some of the Savannah issues tracking the RedHat patches are closed as "Done".

"oi" patch:
Is it safe to be changing our copy of "regex.h" like this? Why the change from #include "regex.h" to <regex.h> ? Do these changes to search.c make some of our existing case-folding logic redundant?

There are many problems I noted with the regex
issue, unfortunately my comments are all over
the place.

This is why at one point I advocated
updating/synching regex.[ch] as being our
highest priority (but others disagreed).

It's one thing for people to disagree on what "we" should make our highest priority, but if you were to do the work on this, or on any other issue, I think all of us would welcome it.

From memory...

The --without-included-regex option to configure
doesn't work properly because it still picks up
the included "regex.h".

The patch adds some right stuff but at a
completely wrong place.

The patch fails to change all "regex.h"
to <regex.h>.

Claudio might have left us with some useful work
on this, but it's a _huge_ patch and it's going
to take some time just to understand what's
in it.

We have to move to the POSIX API instead of the
GNU one anyway.

OK. Basically what you're saying is that that patch is no good, but we really want to do something vaguely similar. Please summarise your comments in that patch issue, and close it as "Won't do." You could also open a new "Task" issue that says what we do need to do.

"icolor" patch:
This just removes some code, saying that it is "redundant and incorrect". I suspect that it depends on some other patch to have been applied first - and I think maybe I asked and was told - but the patch issue doesn't say so, and it should. If I'm wrong, and all the tests that currently pass still pass after applying this, that would be great, but I think I tried that before. I think this is superceded by patch #3767: Remove two match_icase code paths from prline() in src/grep.c.

All the "oi" stuff must be dealt with first,
before removing this.

OK, thanks - that's what I thought.  I've annotated those issues.

- Julian




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]