Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> Thanks very much for your feedback.
> Pleased to hear that things are working.
> It seems from Derek's post that the most urgent thing required to
> get this into the official cvs is some test cases.
> I would be grateful it if you could set up some of these.
> I had thought that I'd complied fairly closely with the other
> requirements in HACKING.
> Please feel free to make modifications to coding style if it is not
> consistent with cvs. Extra documentation or clarification of existing
> documentation would be very welcome. I would appreciate being consulted
> if you were considering any algorithm changes though.
Karl, do you know what, specifically, was causing the merging problems?
I can't come up with a minimal test case based on the message and comments in
your patch.
I'm thinking that the eight cases Jacob has might all be examples of only a
few or even one error case... Is it possible to pare those down into one or a
few simple tests?
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
Predeterminism was doomed from the start.
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
