Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes:
> Earlier, I wrote: >> In contrast, a call to 'substitute*' will silently start doing nothing, >> and may easily be forgotten. To make matters worse, a future version of >> jack-2 might add another 'for' loop in that file, matching the same >> pattern but where it is important that 'i' _not_ be initialized to 0. > > Sorry, I made a mistake in the details here, since the pattern applies > only when 'i' is already initialized to 0, but the more general point > still stands, namely that patches are more robust than 'substitute*' for > fixing bugs, and less likely to be misapplied or left forgotten in a > vestigial state after they are no longer needed. > > Mark That change was not quite fitting right with me either. So I appreciate the review and comments. Thankful it's not needed with 1.9.14 and I'll take your comments into account in the future. Mike
