On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:28:25PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Luca Barbato wrote: > > >Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:51:23PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >>>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >>>>On 07/23/2013 02:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >>>>>This allows excluding the sync-fate-samples target from conditions > >>that > >>>>>match all other fate-related targets. > >>>>>--- > >>>>> > >>>>>Now with a name that is really better than its predecessor. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>No, it is longer, easier to mistype. > >> > >>The new name expresses what is done in a clearer fashion. It's not > >>clear > >>that "fate-rsync" updates the samples and not the tests themselves. > >> > >>>>Just filter out fate-rsync please. > >>> > >>>I agree, the new name is worse, and it reeks of an ugly rename just > >>to > >>>avoid a semi-ugly part somewhere else. > >> > >>There is no rename, I add an alternative name and deprecate the > >>original. > > > >Still not compelling... > > Sorry to say it, but I also still prefer the old name.
samples-fate-sync? I'm not going to start collecting exceptions and special cases in that part of the code base. Few enough people understand it as-is and it's reasonably clean so far. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
