Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "msg00189".
Did you mean:
msg00169
2017 Aug 03
2
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add lightweight bindings for PCRE.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> But I guess I have no chance to change the current patch (even adding
> a test using asserts, instead of oUnit, for which I still did not get
> a reason why a new test using it would be unacceptable), so ...
Fewer dependencies make the code easier for others to consume, and
that's especially true when (like oUnit) those
2017 Aug 04
0
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add lightweight bindings for PCRE.
You asked me to reply to some other points (copied from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-July/msg00189.html):
> Sure. OTOH, we already do use oUnit2, so these reasonings were already
> discussed in the past, and (considered we have tests based on oUnit2)
> deemed not a problem.
I don't think that every past decision should be unchangable.
> What I still don't understand is wh...
2017 Aug 04
1
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add lightweight bindings for PCRE.
On Friday, 4 August 2017 10:01:28 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> You asked me to reply to some other points (copied from
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-July/msg00189.html):
>
> > Sure. OTOH, we already do use oUnit2, so these reasonings were already
> > discussed in the past, and (considered we have tests based on oUnit2)
> > deemed not a problem.
>
> I don't think that every past decision should be unchangable.
I agree, but t...