On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:42:32PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I tracked down the source of the two-autogen.sh-runs-required bug.
>> Here's the fix:
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH] do not require two ./autogen.sh runs to permit
"make"
>>
>> * autogen.sh (bootstrap_hash): New function.
>> Running bootstrap may update the gnulib SHA1, yet we were computing
>> t=$(git submodule status ...) *prior* to running bootstrap, and
>> then recording that sometimes-stale value in the stamp file upon
>> a successful bootstrap run. That would require two (lengthy!)
>> bootstrap runs to update the stamp file.
...[40 lines elided]...
>
> ACK
Thanks.
Pushed.
Just a good-natured reminder: everyone I know prefers review feedback
that removes quoted context for which there is no new comment. Even here,
where the patch was small and easy to "see", omitting the 40-50 lines after
the embedded Subject: or log would have made it a tiny bit easier to read.
Depends, when approving a patch, and if it's small (one page or so)
I tend to just ACK at the end, it allows to see the context. But if
it's more than one page, I don't like that too much. Basically I think
that one should see some input from the replier on any page displayed,
otherwise it's just lost time and space.
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library
http://libvirt.org/