On 10/25/2016 12:43 PM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
> On 2016-10-25 12:05, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> On 10/25/2016 10:50 AM, Jonathan Rajotte Julien wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-10-25 11:34 AM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
This is working toward moving from popt to GLib for command-line
parsing.
>>>
>>> What
On 2016-10-25 12:05, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 10:50 AM, Jonathan Rajotte Julien wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-10-25 11:34 AM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>> This is working toward moving from popt to GLib for command-line
>>> parsing.
>>
>> What is the motivation behind this ?
>
> Babeltrace already
On 10/25/2016 10:50 AM, Jonathan Rajotte Julien wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-25 11:34 AM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> This is working toward moving from popt to GLib for command-line
>> parsing.
>
> What is the motivation behind this ?
Babeltrace already uses GLib extensively and, as best I can tell, it
Hi Nathan,
Simply curious
On 2016-10-25 11:34 AM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
This is working toward moving from popt to GLib for command-line
parsing.
What is the motivation behind this ?
Cheers
I want to add some tests for at least some of the converter
command-line options in order to
This is working toward moving from popt to GLib for command-line
parsing. I want to add some tests for at least some of the converter
command-line options in order to prevent regressions.
I found it somewhat tedious to add even simple test scripts, so I
investigated alternatives to doing
