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@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list