On 08/13/2015 01:47 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 08/11/2015 07:13 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> On 08/11/2015 03:44 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2015 02:11 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>> On (11/08/15 15:04), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a good idea to have such a test, thank you! Please see my
comments
>>>>> regarding the script (as you requested) below.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, shouldn't we take care to not use git, or to not run this
test in case
>>>>> we're running outside git tree, e.g. from unpacked tarball?
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> LS
>>>
>>> Nick, thank you for the comments.
>>>
>>> Would you take over this patch? I understand that you already have a better
>>> solution and I think there's no need to update mine in that case. Would
you
>>> send a patch with proposed solution? There's no time pressure on this
effort
>>> so you would not have to hurry.
>>
>> Sure, no problem. I'll send an update this week.
>
> Alright, here are the updated patches. Changes from the last version by Pavel
> include:
>
> * Reworked and renamed the whitespace test, fixing a number of issues.
> * Made the whitespace test run only if the source is in a Git worktree
> (checkout).
> * Added another patch making Git worktree (checkout) detection work in a
> complete out-of-tree dir and at the same time don't trigger erroneously from
> a subdir of (possibly unrelated) worktree. This is also needed to have the
> whitespace test not run during "make distcheck", but run in CI.
>
> CI results:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/21/40/summary.html
>
> Nick
Thanks for the patches Nick! I think the authorship of the 3rd patch should
be changed to you, as you changed (no doubt to better) the core of the
patch.
So if you will amend patch during the review process please consider
changing it, thanks!
Yeah, I considered changing it, but the base idea was yours, so I decided to
leave it. I'll change it since you think it should be me instead.
Thank you.
Nick