Re: [PATCH] Avoid possible false negatives in cond46.test.

[Stefano Lattarini]

At Monday 12 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> 
wrote:
> The analysis is required in any case.  That doesn't mean it is
>  necessary to mention it in the log message; because even if the
>  analysis is hard work, in this case it is straight-forward.  IOW,
>  the size of the log message doesn't have to reflect the amount of
>  work done for the patch.
Ok.
> 
> If you feel your work needs more representation, that can be done
>  by different means.
Oh, believe me, this is by no means the reason for which I put that 
verbose analysis in the log message.  The real reason is that it was 
much more convenient for me to do so than to e.g. save the analysis in 
another place/file and then, maybe hours or days later, open it again
and cut&paste it in the mail presenting the patch.  That's all, 
really.

Regards,
   Stefano