Re: pushing patches

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:24:19PM CEST: > Hello Ralf, and sorry for taking so long to answer this. don't worry. You have patches pending for longer, and they didn't end up in my spam folder (gah, wish I hadn't written that now ;-) > At Saturday 12 June 201

[PATCH 14v2/14] Do not require "gzip" in tests.

At Sunday 04 July 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Maybe I'll subtitute this patch with a new > one which removes "gzip" from $required in the three > tests above Here it is (see the attachement). Regards, Stefano -*-*-*- Do not require "gzip" in tests. The gzip utility is simply expected

Re: pushing patches (was: [PATCH] Extend tests/README (trailing `:' in test scripts))

Hello Ralf, and sorry for taking so long to answer this. In my defense, I can say that gmail put this message in Spam :-(, and I haven't seen it until today (yeah, stupid me trusting gmail filter so blindly). BTW, gmail marked as spam also the message "the branch a patch is for (was: [PATCH] Tes

Re: [PATCH 14/14] Make sure all tests needing gzip require it explicitly.

At Sunday 04 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:23:36PM CEST: > > OK, this should have really been the first patch in the series, > > so let's review it first. > > > but I > > didn't think of it until the series was almost fin

Re: [PATCH 14/14] Make sure all tests needing gzip require it explicitly.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:23:36PM CEST: > OK, this should have really been the first patch in the series, so let's review it first. > but I > didn't think of it until the series was almost finished, and at that > point I dind't want to risk a rebase with a