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@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/