Re: [PATCH 4/9] Warnings win over strictness in AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE.

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Friday 14 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:27:48PM CET:
> > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:11:41PM CET:
> > > > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > > So, now with that said, I'm not sure whether I should approve this
> > > > > patch.  What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > I think that you should, provided that I add the sanity check you
> > > > suggested above.
> > > 
> > > OK.
> > > 
> > Hmm...  Wait, this sanity check is OK only starting from [PATCH 7/9]
> > onward, as until then the 'handle_options()' subroutine still calls
> > 'process_option_list()' multiple times (that's why the bug is still
> > present for AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS at this point).
> > 
> > So, OK to add the sanity check in [PATCH 7/9] (or in a new follow-up
> > patch to be placed between patches 7 and 8 in this series)?
> 
> Well yes, but why not show the check diff if you have it already?
> 
Because I didn't have it already ;-)

Now I do, and I've posted it as a Re: to [PATCH 7/9].

Regards,
  Stefano