Tony Mechelynck wrote: > On 09/02/09 02:01, pansz wrote: > >> Martin Kopta 写道: >> >>> What the hell did you do?! Arghhhhh!! My scripts now does not work and >>> I have to do some hacks like when the bad patch occured in 7.1 >>> patches. Damn you who did this! >>> >>> >> All patches should pass the vim test suite. So the "bad patch" passed it. >> >> If you has a test case which should fail the "bad patch", you're welcome >> to contribute the test case to vim. >> > > What the OP calls "the bad patch" is any cumulative patch, as > 7.2.001-100.gz (which recapitulates 7.2.001 to 7.2.100) as opposed to > 7.2.102 (which is a "single" patch). Apparently he has written a > patching script which doesn't take the possible existence of cumulative > patches into account. >
Which seems to me that he's cursing himself, as he's the one who wrote the bad script, and so is the responsible party who "did this". Chip Campbell --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
