Hi Chuck, On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:06 -0800, "Tim Rice" wrote: > > I would strongly advocate testing at least one System V based system. > > Non bash shells sometimes have issues. > > During the release process, certainly testing on as many supported > platforms as possible is baked into the cake. *Perhaps*, by a reviewer > or other list denizen, before a particular patch is pushed. But it's > unreasonable to *require* every contributor to have access to multiple > platforms. Some folks who fix HP-UX might not have (or want to install) > cygwin on a win32 box. Or a mingw developer might not have any access to > a Solaris machine. > > I have access to cygwin, mingw, and linux. I don't have access to SysV, > and it would be setting WAY too high a bar for contributions to say "No, > thanks, we don't want your patches because you can't test them on System > Foo". I did not mean to imply that it should be required. It's just a whole lot easier to keep non portable shell/awk/sed code from slipping through if tested on SysV. -- Tim Rice Multitalents (707) 887-1469 t...@multitalents.net
