On 25/10/2007, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was basing it on what you said in the commit - both the heading and
> > the comment in the patch.
>
> That's dangerous here. The details are small, but they matter:
Of course the details matter.
> > 1. This patch is applied to remove t
On 25/10/2007, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The test being removed is correct and valid.
>
> Are you certain? Remember that I wrote it ;)
:)
> > While a 100% pass rate is ideal, on Windows 2003 SP1 that test *is*
> > failing due to a bug.
>
> Again, are you sure? Or are you just say
> I was basing it on what you said in the commit - both the heading and
> the comment in the patch.
That's dangerous here. The details are small, but they matter:
> 1. This patch is applied to remove the test for this feature^Wbug
> in CertGetCertificateChain;
No, the feature/bug is in CertG
> The test being removed is correct and valid.
Are you certain? Remember that I wrote it ;)
> While a 100% pass rate is ideal, on Windows 2003 SP1 that test *is*
> failing due to a bug.
Again, are you sure? Or are you just saying that because I said it is
in the commit? The definition of "bug
Juan Lang wrote:
> -/* Now check just the time */
> -flags = CERT_STORE_TIME_VALIDITY_FLAG;
> -parent = CertGetIssuerCertificateFromStore(store, child, NULL, &flags);
> -ok(parent != NULL, "CertGetIssuerCertificateFromStore failed: %08x\n",
> - GetLastError());
> -/* Oops:
