[PATCH 0/9] test: (hopefully) better test prerequisites
Tomi Ollila
tomi.ollila at iki.fi
Fri Nov 18 00:55:30 PST 2011
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:17:16 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we follow this pattern than all code like:
>
> f() {
> if (!done_once)
> do_once
>
> do_more
> }
>
> Should be rewritten using dynamic functions. I do not think I agree with
> this :)
>
> Anyway, all above is just IMHO. You should probably go ahead and
> prepare a patch implementing this approach for others to review.
I probably won't. While I was looking something in your patch and I was
thinking how to fix I just got this idea and wrote it to see whether
other's see as I do. The discussion got a bit side-tracked as I just
look this tiny part of the whole. Your later patch looks more
understandable than the previous (which emacs || emacs || return) and
it is something I can live with :) -- Just for now I'm not going to
work on the whole anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Dmitry
>
Thanks,
Tomi
More information about the notmuch
mailing list