From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Rebase of Pieter's "set test prereqs"
In-Reply-To: <1321454035-22023-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
References: <1320176954-4897-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<1321454035-22023-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9+81~gd8cf814 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:53:42 -0800
Message-ID: <87lirf99vt.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:49 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net> wro=
te:
> Hello list,
>=20
> This is another rebased version of Pieter's series to add GPG and Emacs a=
s test
> prereqs, plus some additions on my own. (Rebased and posted as requested =
by
> Pieter [1].)
>=20
> Changes as compared to Pieter's patches (including parts from [2]):
> - prereqs are not tested using test_expect_success as they were in Pieter=
's
>   original patches, but using a new function called test_set_bin_prereq. =
I wrote
>   this before the gdb prereq was added, hence the different way to set it.

Hey, Thomas.  Thanks so much for this work.  This sounds like a better
solution.

However, in the patches you send I see a lot of changes of the form

  -test_expect_success 'emacs delivery of encrypted message with attachment=
' \
  +test_expect_success GPG 'emacs delivery of encrypted message with attach=
ment' \

and

  -test_expect_equal \
  +test_expect_equal GPG \

which seems to contradict what you've said above.  Not to mention that I
don't see anything that modifies calls to the test_expect_ functions.
Basically I see a lot more in the diffs than I would have expected in a
cursory look.  Is this just a rebase flub, or is there something I'm
missing?

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=ssJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--