On 2/1/23 15:18, enh via Toybox wrote: > heh, to be clear: i wasn't "dissing" drive-by patching. it accounts > for at least 80% of my entire career :-)
https://landley.net/toybox/downloads/binaries/mkroot/0.8.9/linux-patches/ > i use the term just to acknowledge that for some things -- like this > -- there isn't anyone else who's actually working on the thing full > time, which is my personal rationale for wanting "the simplest thing > that could possibly work", and why my definition of "simple" is > something like "the most easily understood by an average programmer > who hasn't seen this particular code before". I mean to take custody of this thing this year. I'm trying to get to a 1.0 release, which means (among other things) emptying the pending directory entirely. I do admit vi is something I haven't worked out how to regression test yet, but dogfooding it would presumably cover a multitude of sins. (I do edit both my code and my blog in vi...) > (and, yes, in addition to the open() error -- which at least led to a > small simplification of the code -- i've shot myself in the foot by > forgetting that there even are vi tests, not running them, and > breaking them with my recent commit, which i'll have to do something > about before i can sync to AOSP. Huh, I forgot that too. :) Ok, "vi -s" is a good start... > i'll admit i'm very tempted to just > locally ignore those tests for now so i can get people kicking the > `tar --sort=name` tires asap, and coming back to worry about vi > later!) You have applied quantum indeterminacy to "pending" status. It is simultaneously pending and not pending. I'm kind of impressed. Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
