On 09/02/09 02:54, Charles E. Campbell, Jr. wrote: > 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
Looks like yet another case of the "blame it on someone else" syndrome. :-) Best regards, Tony. -- Real Users know your home telephone number. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
