Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Is this ready for 'next'? > > I am not aware of any open questions or issues. You thought out loud > about how the series was structured, in particular about introducing a > successful test, then redefining it, as opposed to introducing it as a > failing test, then making it succeed. I hope I managed to motivate my > choice better in v2 (which is what you have picked up). > > Duy wondered if it was sane to use a pager when we know that we are > "--get"-ing at most one config item. In v2, I addressed this by turning > on paging for a more careful selection of "--get"-ters. Yeah, I am aware of these exchanges, and they are resolved nicely, I think. I was mostly asking if other people have concerns we haven't thought of yet. Let's merge this to 'next', then. Thanks.
