On 11/22/2017 09:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote: > Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the > reasons stated there. > > 177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actually very much > intended to work with compat=0.10 (it even had a special case for that). > However, it now prints the test image's map twice, and short of just not > doing that, there is no solution I can imagine that is both simple and > would leave compat=0.10 support intact. >
So we lost that support in f0a9c18f9e7 and 81c219ac6ce Eric, any input before we downscope your test? > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> Without agonizing over it, I don't see an easy win either, so: Reviewed-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> (but it is a shame to lose the ability to test it.)
