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

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 08:47:54PM CET:
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:30PM CET:
> > > 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.

Sure; when I say "OK with nits addressed" then I mean that you don't
need to ask for approval again after fixing the nits; you can just go
ahead and commit the patch.  If OTOH you would like another review,
then that is very much helped by seeing an updated version of the 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>

Which is all good.  Thanks.

> > 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).

Well, then feel free to go!  :-)

> > 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.

Cool.

Thank you,
Ralf