On Friday 14 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:27:48PM CET: > > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:11:41PM CET: > > > > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > So, now with that said, I'm not sure whether I should approve this > > > > > patch. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > I think that you should, provided that I add the sanity check you > > > > suggested above. > > > > > > OK. > > > > > Hmm... Wait, this sanity check is OK only starting from [PATCH 7/9] > > onward, as until then the 'handle_options()' subroutine still calls > > 'process_option_list()' multiple times (that's why the bug is still > > present for AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS at this point). > > > > So, OK to add the sanity check in [PATCH 7/9] (or in a new follow-up > > patch to be placed between patches 7 and 8 in this series)? > > Well yes, but why not show the check diff if you have it already? > Because I didn't have it already ;-)
Now I do, and I've posted it as a Re: to [PATCH 7/9]. Regards, Stefano
