* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:47:27PM CET: > >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > RW> Several patches of mine have not been addressed nor incorporated into > RW> Automake nor rejected for a while. > > Sorry about that, and thanks for the list. I'll try to look at > it on Saturday.
OK, thanks! > Recently I've been postponing some bug fixes > just because they were submitted without test cases, and I don't > want to include bug fixes without test cases, and I thought it > would be faster (and diplomatically easier to) write one than to > demand one (obviously I was wrong about this, maybe that would > have been truer if I had more time). Well, I can see this (and I've done this myself before). But when time passes, giving no answer at all can be more misleading, at least to irregular list readers, than a short "this is ok but needs doc+test; I'll write one unless beaten to" or similar appropriate note. I was pretty sure that at least some of those patches were deemed to go in at some time; after all, that was one reason for me to do the tests rather than asking right away. :-) > Ralf, in the meantime could you fill in the following form to > get write access to Automake's CVS repository ? Done. > I think it would help me all lot if I just had to agree with your > patches without having to handle to the commit, merge, etc. If that's > OK with you, of course. No problem. Please indicate though which branches some patch should be applied to (I write for HEAD only). You regenerate files with CVS Autoconf and with the Automake version that is being checked in, right? Cheers, Ralf
