On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> > So if you must have a patch that disagrees with this overzealous
> > check, the "revamp todo parsing" one is probably the first. But it is
> > better to think of this at a higher level than just patches: it is
> > wrong to limit the todo script to contain only identical commands.
> So if you think of this at even higher level, the check done in
> parse_insn_line() that _assumes_ that opts->action must match the
> actions on each line is _WRONG_, but what this test expects to see is
> perfectly reasonable, I would think.
> It is a different matter if it makes sense to _verify_ that the user
> didn't make nonsensical change to the generated insn and error out when
> s/he did. I tend to think it is pointless, and I wouldn't object if
> this test is removed due to that reason.
Fine. I will reintroduce that check. I guess I have the time ;-)