[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: New bugs

From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: New bugs
Date: 30 Jan 2001 21:37:49 -0700

>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

Akim> I looked at
Akim> [ ... ]

Isn't it hideous?  Eww.

Akim> And I'd like to ask a question: why not using @COMPILE@ instead of
Akim> replacing $(@address@hidden)?  It seems cleaner to me, and less
Akim> surprising for Sunday hackers :)

The reason is only historical.  Feel free to change it.

Akim> I'll handle this at the same time, when I know what kind of
Akim> changes I'm allowed to.

I won't object to any change that makes things clearer, as long as it
preserves semantics.

Akim> BTW, I'd like to commit the file_contents patch first if you OK
Akim> it, as it will diminish the workload.

Which patch is this?  I think I've reviewed all the patches I've seen.

Akim> I sure will.  In fact, I did see those failures, but didn't
Akim> realize they were mine :(.

All known failures are listed in XFAIL_TESTS.  So any change should
cause 0 new failures.

Akim> Tom, would like me to install something like what I did for
Akim> Autoconf: betas display a banner extracted from BUGS, stating if
Akim> can be used, or must not.

I haven't seen this (I haven't been updating autoconf lately).
However, for automake I've adopted the rule that no change should
cause a test regression (sometimes I forget to update XFAIL_TESTS when
I add a new test case, but that is a bug on my part...).  In general
we try to keep automake "working" all the time.  Sometimes a major bug
is found, but that's a different sort of problem, one I'm not too
inclined to fix.


reply via email to

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