[PATCH 0/6] Rebase of Pieter's "set test prereqs"

[Pieter Praet]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:14:11 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki at schnouki.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:50:17 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:49 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki at schnouki.net> wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > > 
> > > This is another rebased version of Pieter's series to add GPG and Emacs as test
> > > prereqs, plus some additions on my own. (Rebased and posted as requested by
> > > Pieter [1].)
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks Thomas!
> > 
> > Although... you may have misread (or maybe I mistyped :), but what I
> > actually intended [1] was for you to rebase *only* your fixes on top of
> > my rebased series (e.g. see "tjost-fixes.patch" in att), so you could
> > receive proper credit for cleaning up my mess.
> 
> Oh, ok, I must have misread that :) 
> 
> Right now your patches don't apply cleanly on master (conflict in patch
> 3 due to commit 5964a7), and I think that Dmitry's patches [1] may be a
> better way to handle prereqs. So I probably won't send those patches
> until we decide which approach is the way to go.
> 
> [1] id:"1321494986-18998-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com"
> 

Yup, Dmitry's solution is much more elegant!

> > Also, while my apprehension [2,3] re the inclusion of the SCREEN/DTACH
> > prereq in patches #4,5,6 didn't have much merit (it's an all-or-nothing
> > affair anyways), the issue [3] in patch #5 @ "Reply within emacs" still
> > stands: `sed' will run unconditionally, and treat "EMACS" as an input
> > file.  (see "sed-prereq-fix.patch" in att).
> 
> Nice catch with this sed issue. Looks like I need to be more careful
> when replacing "OUTPUT" with "EMACS OUTPUT"...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Thomas/Schnouki


Peace

-- 
Pieter