* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 06:47:10PM CET: > > Two related lines of inquiry: > 1) Under *normal* development rules -- e.g not a pre-release > bug-fix-only phase, nor a not-quite-pre-release code slush like (I > think) we're in right now, for 2.2.8 -- surely you aren't suggesting > that EVERY contribution must be validated on EVERY platform, prior to > push?
No, I'm not. I didn't mean for it to come across that way. > These were tested on cyg/ming and linux, so in general, during > /normal/ development, that should be sufficient contra reveiwer > comments, right? Yes. > 2) in the current pre-release-ish situation, if you want to postpone > /all/ of the cygming patches until post-2.2.8 that's ok (I'd rather at > least get /some/ of them in, but it's not the end of the world > otherwise). I'm trying to get confidence for some of them to go in. > Finally, it's not clear in your message: are you saying that *existing* > win32 "changes" currently in master are causing problems on HP-UX, or > just that some of the win32 changes /in this patch/ are causing them? Something causes lots of leftover shell temp files, and they contain cwrapper contents. These leftover files cause later, unrelated processes with same PIDs to fail when needing shell temp files as well (yeah the temp file naming is really crappy). Bet it's merely some shell bug with here-documents in functions or so, but I haven't analyzed it yet. As to Bob's certainly right note on a high bar for patch entry: adding more testsuite coverage can only help confidence in changes. Yes, I am repeating myself. (And no, this isn't particularly directed at your w32 changes, either.) Cheers, Ralf
