* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 08:47:54PM CET: > On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:30PM CET: > > > 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. Sure; when I say "OK with nits addressed" then I mean that you don't need to ask for approval again after fixing the nits; you can just go ahead and commit the patch. If OTOH you would like another review, then that is very much helped by seeing an updated version of the 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> Which is all good. Thanks. > > 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). Well, then feel free to go! :-) > > 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. Cool. Thank you, Ralf