On 2017-12-09 17:53, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/08/2017 07:46 PM, John Snow wrote: >> >> >> On 11/22/2017 09:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >>> Tests 080, 130, 137, and 176 simply do not work with compat=0.10 for the >>> reasons stated there. >>> >>> 177 is a bit more interesting: Originally, it was actually very much >>> intended to work with compat=0.10 (it even had a special case for that). >>> However, it now prints the test image's map twice, and short of just not >>> doing that, there is no solution I can imagine that is both simple and >>> would leave compat=0.10 support intact. >>> >> >> So we lost that support in >> f0a9c18f9e7 >> and >> 81c219ac6ce >> >> Eric, any input before we downscope your test? > > Ouch, I broke my own test. > > Maybe the best thing would be to split 177 into two tests: the original > test (as it was before f0a9c18) that works on both compats, and a new > test that works on just compat=1.1 images for the things added in later > commits. > > Since I'm the author for all commits (so far) to that file, I guess I > can sign up for that work...
Did you make any progress? :-) Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
