On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:46:58AM -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:09:06PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Aaron Plattner <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:07:14AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > >> A while back Peter asked me about helping him add autotools support > > > > >> after he pulled xtest out of cvs into git. We got that handled pretty > > > > >> quickly, but I decided to spend some time making it actually easy to > > > > >> use. So, I give you the revamped XTS: > > > > >> > > > > >> git://people.freedesktop.org/~dbn/xtest.git > > > > > > > > > > Dan, is xtest really licensed under the "Artistic" license? I have > > > > > some > > > > > changes pending to clean up a whole lot of warnings, but I just > > > > > noticed > > > > > this term in the license: > > > > > > > > > > 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, > > > > > provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file > > > > > stating how and when you changed that file, [...] > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to avoid having to go through and add a change note to all > > > > > 551 > > > > > files I've touched so far. > > > > > > > > I think the Artistic license applies to the bundled tet code (the test > > > > platform) in src/. This is what License says. However, everything > > > > under xts5 (the test suite itself) appears to be under the X11 > > > > license. So, if you've kept your modifications to xts5/, you're OK. Of > > > > course, now it appears I'll have to do that to address the hacking I > > > > did to the test platform to make it behave reasonably. What a weak > > > > license. > > > > > > Okay. I did touch a bunch of files in tet, but it was easy to use a > > > script > > > to do it (vim is awesome). There are still a ton of warnings to go in > > > xts5, but I think this is a good start. > > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit > > > 1f9c7db3a60e22b06bd5b5b457ed048f89031b24: > > > Jon TURNEY (1): > > > xts5: Make sure libXR5 preceeds the libraries it depends upon in > > > the link order > > > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > > > git://people.freedesktop.org/~aplattner/xtest master > > > > > > Aaron Plattner (8): > > > tet: Fix "sccsid defined but not used" warnings. > > > tet: Fix "srcFile defined but not used" warnings. > > > tet: Fix "ambiguous else" warnings. > > > tet: Fix the remaining warnings. > > > tet: Add change notifications to comply with the annoying terms of > > > the 'Artistic' license. > > > xts5: Fix "missing braces around initializer" warnings. > > > xts5: Fix "unused variable" warnings. > > > > in this patch, in xts5/src/lib/startup.c: > > -extern char *TestName; > > +/* APTETS extern char *TestName; */ > > It's supposed to match this code later, except that I typo'd it: > > /*APTEST > (void) sprintf(buf, "TRACE:NAME: %s", TestName); > tet_infoline(buf); > */ > > Do you think it's worth fixing? I could just delete the commented-out > code, since it exists in revision control. > > > that seems like an odd change. > > > > > xts5: Fix "format 'blah' expects type 'blah' but argument has type > > > 'blah'" warnings. > > > > > > 555 files changed, 1833 insertions(+), 3841 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> > > I'm not too familiar with the procedure for this... should I add your > Acked-by to all the changes, or is rewinding the published HEAD to rewrite > the commit logs bad form?
two options. what I did with a few pull requests that got a late acked-by, I just added this to the merge commit so it's saved somewhere. that of course requires a non-fast-forward pull. the other option is to edit the tree. I do the editing with my branches sometimes, if I'm only adding acked-by and reviewed-by, then I'm not destroying testing history. and if it's a pull-branch only, it won't matter much if the shas change anyway. Or, the third (out of two options) is to simply take the acked-by as a, "yeah, that'll be alright to merge" and ignore it. :) which was mostly how it was meant anyway. I dont thing the XTS requires the same process as the server just yet. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
