Re: 2.0.3 planning

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

I hate to sound old-fashioned, but it would probably be faster for me
to look at the diff of stuff you do _not_ want to merge...

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc

Re: 2.0.3 planning

[Tim Kientzle]

This is a very strange comment.  If Varnish requires a
particular sequence, it should implement its own.  If
it requires particular statistical properties, it should
test for those, not test for a specific sequence.

Tim


On Jan 8, 2009, at 2:12 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

 
 r3367 | phk | 2008-11-10 10:37:21 +0100 (ma., 10 nov. 2008) | 14 lines

 Add a toplevel word which examines the sequence returned by
 srandom(1) and stops the test if we do not get the same sequence
 as we expect.

 The Open Group does not define which deterministic sequence srandom(1)
 should result in, on that it be deterministic, but I have high hopes
 in the general sanity and expect that UNIX people across the board
 have realized that for portability the same sequence should be
 returned on all platforms.

 At the very least FreeBSD and Linux/GLIBC, as seen on  
 projects.linpro.no,
 agree.

___
varnish-misc mailing list
varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc