Another couple of copyright-related fixlets. I've applied the first
one to maint, the second one to master.
Regards,
Stefano
>From db5ddc2bfceeb4470d02c2ff2375cf5900415493 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id:
From: Stefano Lattarini
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:33:30 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] updat
On 02/14/2012 09:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright
>
> * lib/update-copyright: New file, from gnulib.
> * Makefile.am (FETCHFILES): Add update-copyright to the list.
> (fetch): Fetch it.
> (update-copyright): New rule.
> ---
> Makefi
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
>> I propose to push the result of doing this:
>>
>> $ git ci -m 'maint: run "make update-copyright"' -a
>> [maint aafc6b5] maint: run "make update-copyright"
>>1041 files changed, 1041 insertions(+), 1266 deletions(-)
>>
> Hmm... It now occurs to me that, if w
On 02/14/2012 09:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Hi Jim.
>>
>> On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the adjusted c-set:
>>>
>>> From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jim Meyering
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Jim.
>
> On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Here's the adjusted c-set:
>>
>> From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jim Meyering
>> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:57:42 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to u
Hi Jim.
On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Here's the adjusted c-set:
>
> From 21b627dbec3347c2befde186c65592b9f177cd8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:57:42 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] maint: add a rule to use gnulib's update-copyright
>
> *
On 02/12/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> ...
>>> However, if you know of such test failures, it'd be nice to mark
>>> them as XFAIL as soon as you can -- even if just for a few days --
>>> to avoid wasted effort.
>>>
>> But by doing so we would risk to let such failu
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
>> However, if you know of such test failures, it'd be nice to mark
>> them as XFAIL as soon as you can -- even if just for a few days --
>> to avoid wasted effort.
>>
> But by doing so we would risk to let such failures "slips through the
> cracks"... Still, having th
On 02/12/2012 05:29 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've seen this new failure. But the best fix is IMHO to improve the
>> new 'am__make_dryrun' instead (which is proving a little to much brittle
>> in other contexts). This spurious failure will probably disappear by
