On 02/08/2013 10:11 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more
>>> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to
>>> the agreed form ;-) -- whic
On 02/08/2013 05:13 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>> Hmm, if that's the case, then I think "canon" is the wrong term to
>>> use, as it typically implies that the result is still in the same
>>> domain as the input.
>>>
>> Suggestions for a better name then?
>
> Dunno... something like "RELDIR_SYM" woul
On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more
>> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to
>> the agreed form ;-) -- which if I'm not mistaken is:
>>
>> - make the seri
From: Stefano Lattarini
* t/preproc-demo.sh: New test, a "demo" of how the new pre-processing
feature could be used in a real-world package.
* t/preproc-errmsg.sh: New test, check that error messages remain
useful when the new pre-processing features are involved.
* t/preproc-reldir.sh: Split up
The rationale for this change is that it is annoying to have
to repeat the directory name when including a Makefile fragment.
For deep directory structures these repeats can generate a lot
of bloat. It also hinders reuse and easy directory restructuring
if all Makefile fragments have to know exact
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more
> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to
> the agreed form ;-) -- which if I'm not mistaken is:
>
> - make the series consist of only two patches, one introducing
