On 01/17/2018 07:41 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> So we lost that support in
>>> f0a9c18f9e7
>>> and
>>> 81c219ac6ce
>>>
>>> Eric, any input before we downscope your test?
>>
>> Ouch, I broke my own test.
>>
>> Maybe the best thing would be to split 177 into two tests: the original
>> test (as it was b
On 2017-12-09 17:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 07:46 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2017 09:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the
>>> reasons stated there.
>>>
>>> 177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actua
On 12/08/2017 07:46 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 11/22/2017 09:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the
>> reasons stated there.
>>
>> 177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actually very much
>> intended to work with compat=
On 11/22/2017 09:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the
> reasons stated there.
>
> 177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actually very much
> intended to work with compat=0.10 (it even had a special case for that).
> Howev
Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the
reasons stated there.
177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actually very much
intended to work with compat=0.10 (it even had a special case for that).
However, it now prints the test image's map twice, and short
