On 12-01-31 03:34 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: >> A couple of minor problems. I wouldn't rock the code too much as we can >> live with them. I am prepared to accept the patch as it is. > Excellent, thanks for the review and testing :-) > >> If autoresume reaches the last module in the autoresume file, it will >> get built anyway, whether it has previously passed or failed. > It was coded that way on purpose to preserve the existing behaviour of > --autoresume (it always assumes the last module in the built list > failed), but I admit even I found it weird (no matter how the last > module did it always has an implicit "FAIL: " status, but I didn't > think you'd approve if the behaviour changed). You're right about that, just think how confusing it would be for the user :-) > The "fix" for this > would entail figuring out if there is a next module to build and > finding out what that next module might be. That isn't an easy thing > to do. It is easier when a --modfile is provided, but only slightly > so. > Ok, let's leave it as it is. That leaves us with the --autoresume together with -o to resolve. I am leaning towards an error msg on this combination rather than trying to find a meaning where none exists.
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
