[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 depend2.am:
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.
Tom