Wes Hardaker wrote on 2007-07-13:
> How about a counter proposal, since I don't think that patch is
> necessarily any purer (it is still comparing strings)...
Now that 5.4.1 is out of the door, I think we should reconsider Wes'
patch, assumed he's still proposing it. :-)
Wes?
+Thomas
-
> "WH" == Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> It's just the original title (subject line, with "rfv: " in front of it)
TA> of the RFV. I didn't want to call it something else in the middle of voting.
WH> Unfortunately, it misled
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> It's just the original title (subject line, with "rfv: " in front of it)
TA> of the RFV. I didn't want to call it something else in the middle of voting.
Unfortunately, it misled me by leaving it that way... Sorry. Confusion
over.
--
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TA> Agreed. Regarding the "remove asserts with undefined string comparisons"
> TA> RFV in question, I think we're currently at 4:1 (Marcus, Robert, Thomas,
> TA> Dave in favor, Wes against) for rc3.
>
> Err... Your
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> Agreed. Regarding the "remove asserts with undefined string comparisons"
TA> RFV in question, I think we're currently at 4:1 (Marcus, Robert, Thomas,
TA> Dave in favor, Wes against) for rc3.
Err... Your above statement of "remove assert
Dave Shield wrote:
> If switching from
> assert( "string1" == "string2" )
> to
> assert( !"string == string2" )
>
> has the required behaviour, then that's probably the sensible
> change to apply at the moment.
>
> If we want to move towards a debug-based approach (either within
> an as
On 13/07/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TA> -coders subject was "Re: rfv: remove asserts with undefined string
> TA> comparisons". I'm attaching it here again for convenience.
>
> Ugh. -1.
>
> How about a counter proposal,
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> -coders subject was "Re: rfv: remove asserts with undefined string
TA> comparisons". I'm attaching it here again for convenience.
Ugh. -1.
How about a counter proposal, since I don't think that patch is
necessarily any purer (it is sti
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> So, where is that patch? I can't find it or the discussion. We had a
> discussion on irc that I remember, but I don't see a patch anywhere that
> is mentioned above...
-coders subject was "Re: rfv: remove asserts with undefined string
comparisons". I'm attaching it here aga
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> rfv: remove asserts with undefined string comparisons
DS> +2 on latest patch
So, where is that patch? I can't find it or the discussion. We had a
discussion on irc that I remember, but I don't see a patch anywhere that
is mentioned above
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:37:04 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> rfv: stop looking for config dirs when done
DS> +6 - not yet applied
DS>
DS> rfv: don't delete interface entry w/scan errors
DS> +3, sorta +4
DS> 3-4 hours voting still to run
Both applied.
-
I've just checked the status of the various RFVs that have been issued
for 5.4.1.
Summary as follows:
rfv: Patch 1728247 long long vs int64_t
+4 - Applied
Outstanding issue re: HAVE_UINT64_T
rfv: install embedded perl files with mode 644
+5 - Applied
rfv: re
12 matches
Mail list logo
