On 2024-12-04 16:07 +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Sun, 1 Dec 2024, Alexander Strasser via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
[...] > > > > Would it be better to use the same description as int fate.texi ? > > Sure, I can add that extra parenthesis. Thanks. [...] > > > +fate-clear-results: > > > + @rm -f tests/data/fate/*.rep > > > + > > > coverage.info: TAG = LCOV > > > coverage.info: > > > $(M)lcov -q -d $(CURDIR) -b $(patsubst src%,./,$(SRC_LINK)) --capture | > > > \ > > > -- > > > > Maybe the attached patch would make sense on top of your changes? > > Nice, thanks. I'm not very familiar with awk so I seldom write such things > myself, but this does indeed seem neater. > > As a second question, do you have any opinion on the fate target names? > Should the second be "fate-clear-failing" to match the list-failing one? But > technically it's not only about clearing the failing ones but clearing all > results... I think fate-clear-results is better, because it more accurately describes what it does. Maybe fate-clear-reports would be even more precise. That is if I recall correctly that the `.rep` suffix was chosen as an abbrevation for report. Alexander _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
