On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 19:10 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > Change looks good.
Thanks for the review. > Is there a reason the tests aren't included in the webrev? I think it > would be better to have them checked in, even if they can't be run > automatically. The reason was that it's not a good test to be run automatically. It would have to have some heuristic which it uses as "passed" and "fail". Checking in the code anyway has a tendency for it to bitrot. If you really feel strongly about it, I can add it. FWIW, the reference to the test isn't going away so it'll be available either way. > They will need copyright headers and I'd correct the spelling of > 'collision' too :-) :) Af for the typo: Well spotted. Thanks, Severin
