On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Having one test is fine, and it looks good, too.
I suppose we might want to change the MANS line and the install-manX
rules to be flattened, they already look pretty ugly in the Makefile.
But that can happen in a followup patch.
Hello Ralf,
I
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 01:27:05PM CET:
or still something else. If so please indicate what.
Oh sorry, I was in a hurry and not thinking. What I meant was that
while you can't wrap arbitrary lines ending in
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Well, here's a review of your patches. If you have time to address the
comments, that would be great, otherwise I will eventually do it.
Hi Ralf,
I will go through your comments and think most of them pose no problem. For
the moment just a few
Hi Peter,
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:43:20AM CET:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
This triple loop is already at 72 iterations. Not good for performance.
If this grows further, we may have to access variables in a different
manner here.
I assume you
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 01:27:05PM CET:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Also, the whole thing would probably be a lot more readable if the
?NOTR?/?DOTR? prefixes vanished and were replaced by full rules, wrapped
in `if %?NOTRANS_MANS%'. That would be a
Hello Peter,
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:20:04PM CET:
attached are five patches (the diffs are actually against the result of
applying your patch for PR 516 from 2008-01-22):
Thanks for your work in this, and sorry for the delay. I saw that your
paperwork is now
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
How should I proceed, once all that is finished? Email to you and/or
automake bugzilla?
automake-patches@gnu.org is best.
Are unified diffs against the autoamke-1.10.1 tarball OK?
Yes.
What about re-indenting existing code?
Please as a
