Hi Ben,
On 15 March 2016 at 05:33, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:20:57PM +0100, Yvan Roux wrote:
>
>> there is an issue when remote testing testcases which check an
>> output pattern with an explicit '\n' at the end. rsh_exec
>> explicitly removes it to behave as 'exec', I don
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:20:57PM +0100, Yvan Roux wrote:
> there is an issue when remote testing testcases which check an
> output pattern with an explicit '\n' at the end. rsh_exec
> explicitly removes it to behave as 'exec', I don't know if something
> changed in 'exec' behavior since these l
Hi Ben
On 4 March 2016 at 23:35, Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:20:57PM +0100, Yvan Roux wrote:
>
>> there is an issue when remote testing testcases which check an
>> output pattern with an explicit '\n' at the end. rsh_exec
>> explicitly removes it to behave as 'exec', I don't
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:20:57PM +0100, Yvan Roux wrote:
> there is an issue when remote testing testcases which check an
> output pattern with an explicit '\n' at the end. rsh_exec
> explicitly removes it to behave as 'exec', I don't know if something
> changed in 'exec' behavior since these l
Hi,
there is an issue when remote testing testcases which check an output
pattern with an explicit '\n' at the end. rsh_exec explicitly removes
it to behave as 'exec', I don't know if something changed in 'exec'
behavior since these lines were checked in in 2001 or if it still
removes a '\n' in s
