* Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 03:31:08AM CEST: > On 06/06/2010 05:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Without the URL change, the results are documented wrongly in the > > manual, missing > > #define PACKAGE_URL "" > > > > so this might be nice before 2.66. OK? > > Given that argument, yes, this looks fine.
Thanks. > > The second patch has the downside of requiring maintenance should the > > formatting of the source contents change. > > I only saw one patch? I meant "the second test", not a second patch, sorry. But you understood me alright. > But I'm okay with the slight maintenance burden > if the file contents change slightly; at least with an automated test, > we are more likely to notice it as it happens, and decide at that time > if (and how) the test can be relaxed. My thinking, too. Cheers, Ralf
