Den 2011-03-01 11:37 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > On Tuesday 01 March 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2011-03-01 10:40 skrev Stefano Lattarini: >>> On Tuesday 01 March 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: >>>> Good, I pushed with that squashed in. I didn't dare a merge to >>>> master as the conflicts looked scary. >>>> >>> I've taken a look and done the merge. Luckily, the conflicts were >>> in fact strictly spurious (but yes, they truly look scary if you're >>> not intimate with the latest changes in tests/defs, which indeed >>> entailed quite a bit of code moving; sorry about that). >> >> Thanks! I managed to guess that it probably just looked scary, but >> the thing that held me back was the fact that the new ltinit.test >> was written for maint, and I didn't know what parts of it needed >> adjustment for master. >> > *Ideally*, no one should. Every test that works for maint should also > work for master without modifications (unless, of course, it tests an > automake behaviour that has been modified in master).
Yes, ideally. But I'd be much more confident if the tests dir hadn't been the victim of continuous stirring :-) >> I did spot the obsolete set -e but didn't >> know what else I was missing (probably nothing, but I wasn't >> sure...). Anyway, should I push the below or is the plan to >> clean up all new 'set -e' fallouts "later"? >> > That was my intention, yes. But if you want to clean up all the > existing 'set -e' fallouts, that would be nice and well-received > (and in fact, "git grep '^set -e$' master:tests" shows there is > a fair numer of such fallouts already). Otherwise, I can still > do that (at a later time). I'm dropping the patch, there's no point in fixing a tiny fraction of such a minor non-problem. Cheers, Peter
