[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Extend checks on remake rules.
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Extend checks on remake rules. |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:44:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) |
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 01:27:10AM CET:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ magic strings ]
> > Why all the variation in these? That makes the tests harder to read.
> >
> I'd rather not change the use of magic strings on the other remake
> tests, unless you insist. The test remak3a.test is IMHO simple enough
> not to cause confusion, and changing the tests remake8{a,b}.test would
> be quite cumbersome.
I don't insist.
> > > + test x'$(am_fingerprint)' = x'DummyValue'
> >
> > Why do you quote DummyValue here?
> >
> Partly for symmetry with the left side, and partly (especially I'd say)
> to make the leading `x' stick out better as "not a part of the expected
> value".
>
> > The leading x should not be needed on either side.
> >
> True, "should not" -- but I got in the habit of always using it, even
> where technically not needed, rather then risking to forgot it one time
> when it's really required.
>
> > (several instances below)
> >
> Should I remove them? (sorry if I ask, but the "should" above does
> not make it clear if you're asking to remove them or just noting that
> they are not really required).
Ah, the fun of English negation and passive voice. I'm not totally firm
in this area either, but I think that "should not be needed" has the
meaning of "is not needed, at least I think so" rather than "don't do
this or I'll poke you with a stick". I hope somebody corrects me on
this if my interpretation is wrong.
> Attached is also the amended patch. I will push in 72 hours if there
> are no more objections (and if all my testing on Linux and Solaris
> succeeds).
I don't object, but TBH, I didn't look at the patch again. ;-)
Thanks!
Ralf