Hi Achim,
Achim Gratz writes:
> Bastien writes:
>>> Aside from the issue of whether using macros here is needed or
>>> appropriate, I can't find anything wrong with the macros or their use so
>>> far. If that upholds, the test not working points to a rather
>>> substantial bug in either the tes
Bastien writes:
>> Aside from the issue of whether using macros here is needed or
>> appropriate, I can't find anything wrong with the macros or their use so
>> far. If that upholds, the test not working points to a rather
>> substantial bug in either the test framework or Emacs 24.3.
>
> It's no
Hi Achim,
Achim Gratz writes:
> Aside from the issue of whether using macros here is needed or
> appropriate, I can't find anything wrong with the macros or their use so
> far. If that upholds, the test not working points to a rather
> substantial bug in either the test framework or Emacs 24.3.
Bastien writes:
> If we agree the macros are not really needed we can make the change.
> We will always be free to find why the macros are causing problems
> later one. I know the move looks like I want to avoid the problems
> instead of fixing them, but it's not: it's about fixing the approach
>
Hi Achim,
Bastien writes:
> Yes -- but what I'm arguing about is that the special syntax is not
> needed. Or more specifically, it is not needed to have
>
> (org-export-define-backend html
> ((bold . org-html-bold)
>
> instead of just
>
> (org-export-define-backend 'html
> '((bold .
Hi Achim,
Achim Gratz writes:
> Bastien altern.org> writes:
>> One potential problem in the first test is the use of "parent" as the
>> name of the symbol to pass to the macro... since this is the very same
>> name than the macro second argument. At least this reminded me this
>> section of El
Bastien altern.org> writes:
> One potential problem in the first test is the use of "parent" as the
> name of the symbol to pass to the macro... since this is the very same
> name than the macro second argument. At least this reminded me this
> section of Elisp manual:
I've actually tested this
Bastien writes:
> It was a problem with Org. I just removed the tests, which
> pass fine when called interactively, but don't pass when run
> in batch mode.
Since they did pass just until Emacs 24.3 was released (and still pass
with earlier versions) that should maybe give you some pause before y
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Röhler writes:
> should not the build process be independent from tests?
Yes, the default build process should be independant from
the tests, and it is. ~$ make up2 runs the test, but it
is not the default build process.
--
Bastien
Am 13.03.2013 12:58, schrieb Bastien:
Hi Erich,
Neuwirth Erich writes:
I just installed Emacs 24.3.1 on OSX 10.8.2
and tried to build the latest git version of orgmode. It fails.
Is this due to the fact that I have a new emacs,
or is it a more general problem.
It was a problem with Org. I
>I just installed Emacs 24.3.1 on OSX 10.8.2
>and tried to build the latest git version of orgmode. It fails.
>Is this due to the fact that I have a new emacs,
>or is it a more general problem.
>Here is the output from building:
>
>
>Ran 428 tests, 426 results as expected, 2 unexpected (2013-03-13
Hi Erich,
Neuwirth Erich writes:
> I just installed Emacs 24.3.1 on OSX 10.8.2
> and tried to build the latest git version of orgmode. It fails.
> Is this due to the fact that I have a new emacs,
> or is it a more general problem.
It was a problem with Org. I just removed the tests, which
pass
I just installed Emacs 24.3.1 on OSX 10.8.2
and tried to build the latest git version of orgmode. It fails.
Is this due to the fact that I have a new emacs,
or is it a more general problem.
Here is the output from building:
Ran 428 tests, 426 results as expected, 2 unexpected (2013-03-13 08:36:11
13 matches
Mail list logo
