On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:30PM CET: > > On Friday 24 September 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > Now that I've run all those tests (whose results are posted in this > > > thread), ok to push to master? > > > > > Pinging the patch again, following this: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-11/msg00003.html> > > Note that this patch is based off of master, not of maint, for reasons > > stated here: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00180.html> > > > > OK to push? > > Hmm, I didn't have this one on my radar any more. I think that's > because in: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00172.html > I OKed the patch with nits addressed. There was some more discussion > about things after that, but AFAICS you did not post a new full patch. Yes, because you told me once (cannot remember exactly when) that if I addressed objections from a reviwer exactly in the way suggested by him, there was no need to re-post a full amended patch.
Also, you said that this patch was somewhat invasive and required some more testing, so I did the all the testsing I could before asking for the final blessing: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00192.html> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00223.html> > If you'd like me to take another look, please post the patch as you > intend to push it. There should be no need of this, as the patch is unchanged except for rebasing (which triggered no conflicts, and left the testsuite pass). > Also, in above message I suggested an optimization of your patch; please > indicate whether you intend to work on it. Yes, I was planning to do that (in a temporary branch) after the present patch is applied. Regards, Stefano