On Tuesday 15 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Sorry, I'm probably just making myself not clear. Here's a patch that I
would squash in on top of your patch, and that I think addresses all
issues that I mention in my review. It basically reverses the doc part
of your patch and then
On Monday 14 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Stefano,
a while ago ...
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:38:50PM CET:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-11/msg00152.html
On Tuesday 15 February 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On Monday 14 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Stefano,
a while ago ...
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:38:50PM CET:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-11/msg00152.html
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:21:36AM CET:
On Monday 14 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/instspc-data.test
+# Helper testcase which generate input data for the other test
+# `instspc-*.test'. It basically delegates the work to
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:36:16PM CET:
OK, here's my shot at it. The implementation might be suboptimal,
but since it wasn't completely obvious to get right, I'd rather not
tweak it anymore, until there's a real need at least.
Lemme tweak it for you. ;-)
(By the
Hello Ralf.
On Tuesday 15 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:36:16PM CET:
OK, here's my shot at it. The implementation might be suboptimal,
but since it wasn't completely obvious to get right, I'd rather not
tweak it anymore, until
