Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

Zack Weinberg wrote: On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Now that I have seen the actual patch, yes, this test should be accurate. The test in the main autom4te script will also work, even if there is a mismatch between the script and its library Good. This

Re: rhel8 test failure confirmation?

Zack Weinberg wrote: On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Zack Weinberg wrote: [snip everything addressed in the other thread] Yes, there was a bit of confusion here; not only is the FileUtils module synchronized between autom4te and automake Thanks for

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

Features: subsecond-timestamps Sounds good to me, FWIW. Thanks to all. -k

Re: rhel8 test failure confirmation?

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Zack Weinberg wrote: [snip everything addressed in the other thread] > Yes, there was a bit of confusion here; not only is the FileUtils > module synchronized between autom4te and automake Thanks for reminding me that I need to make sure

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Now that I have seen the actual patch, yes, this test should be > accurate. The test in the main autom4te script will also work, even > if there is a mismatch between the script and its library Good. > This appears to be misaligned with