Valentin Villenave <v.villen...@gmail.com> writes: > On 4/19/20, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> At that day I was having one patchy run after the other and I did go >> through the log files to indicate the failed file and the error message. > > Yep, and I asked for additional info both on the tracker and on > Rietveld; the only reply I did get was from James who confirmed that > the patch was actually running fine on his system, but we agreed to > put it through the reviewing process again. It went through > `reviewing’, `countdown’ and `push’ stages (and languished in the > latter for one more week), at which point I thought I could give it > another go (and I didn’t want to nag you about that any longer, as I > quite noticed that you were focusing on more pressing issues). But at > least this finally allowed us to track down the exact problem, and I > will indeed submit a workaround soon. > >> At some point of time, I dropped the >> shoe. It did not help my focus at that time that Han-Wen was fighting a >> contribution of mine nail and tooth. > > Indeed (and your work is still in limbo in that regard, which I hope > gets resolved soon btw, as all this work on the C++ consistency is > much more fundamental and important than some hackish regtest anyway). > > I have no objection to this getting reverted (yet again), as long as > I’m now able to understand exactly what went wrong and why, which you > turned out to be the only one who could investigate! So this is > certainly not a case of shoe-dropping as far as I’m concerned.
Ball-dropping. I really need to get my idioms right. -- David Kastrup
