Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:30PM CET:
> > On Friday 24 September 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > Now that I've run all those tests (whose results are posted in this 
> > > thread), ok to push to master?
> > > 
> > Pinging the patch again, following this:
> >  <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-11/msg00003.html>
> > Note that this patch is based off of master, not of maint, for reasons
> > stated here:
> >  <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00180.html>
> > 
> > OK to push?
> 
> Hmm, I didn't have this one on my radar any more.  I think that's
> because in:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00172.html
> I OKed the patch with nits addressed.  There was some more discussion
> about things after that, but AFAICS you did not post a new full patch.
Yes, because you told me once (cannot remember exactly when) that if I
addressed objections from a reviwer exactly in the way suggested by him,
there was no need to re-post a full amended patch.

Also, you said that this patch was somewhat invasive and required some
more testing, so I did the all the testsing I could before asking for
the final blessing:
 <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00192.html>
 <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00223.html>

> If you'd like me to take another look, please post the patch as you
> intend to push it.
There should be no need of this, as the patch is unchanged except for
rebasing (which triggered no conflicts, and left the testsuite pass).

> Also, in above message I suggested an optimization of your patch; please
> indicate whether you intend to work on it.
Yes, I was planning to do that (in a temporary branch) after the present
patch is applied.

Regards,
  Stefano