[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [FYI] {maint} maintcheck: avoid few spurious failures
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [FYI] {maint} maintcheck: avoid few spurious failures |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:53:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) |
On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:59:57PM CEST:
> > On Monday 20 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:05:45PM CEST:
> > > > sc_tests_plain_automake:
> > > > - @if grep -v '^#' $(srcdir)/tests/*.test | grep -E ':[
> > > > ]*automake([^:]|$$)'; then \
> > > > + @if grep -v '^#' $(srcdir)/tests/*.test | grep -E ':[
> > > > ]*automake\>([^:]|$$)'; then \
> > >
> > > The RE that was there before was there specifically to emulate the
> > > nonportable '\>' construct. Now, I'm not sure I should fight for using
> > > Posix compatible regular expressions in maintainer-check rules (seems I
> > > lost that battle earlier already),
> > >
> > Well, notice that I've just followed the existing practice in using GNU
> > grep extensions in the maintcheck rules;
>
> Yes; notice that I had noticed that.
>
OK :-)
> > > but if you require GNU grep, please be consistent and remove the
> > > now-unneeded stuff afterwards and the -E.
> > >
> > OK, I will push the attached patch if that's OK with you.
>
> Ugh; 1/2 seems to be going into the wrong direction of changing test
> code to work around suboptimal maintainer checks, so sorry for leading
> you on a wrong path there again. 2/2 seems fine, thanks.
>
So should I drop the first patch and keep only the second one?
Regards,
Stefano