On 04/20/2013 03:47 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 04/18/2013 11:52 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> On 04/18/2013 06:10 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> You may want to consider using the existing retry_delay_() >>> rather than wait4lines() in the tests, but otherwise it >>> looks good to push. >> >> Thanks for the review. >> I'll have a look at retry_delay_() again tomorrow, and see >> if it makes waiting for tail's output easier. > > Hi Padraig, > > as there are different line counts expected in the 'out' file, > I needed to change retry_delay_(). it can now be called with > more than three arguments (test_func, init_delay, max_n_tries) > in which case it passes such values on to test_func. > > Unless there are objection, I'd push the attached tomorrow.
Looks great, thanks, Pádraig.
