Marcus Comstedt <marcus@mc.pp.se> writes:
> Let's get this straight once and for all. I don't send patches unless
> the bug actually is causing me a problem. It's very easy to reproduce
> the problem is you have a classical bourne shell (not bash):
>
> $ foo="`echo bar | sed -e "s/-I[^ ]*//g"`"
> : cannot execute
> ]*//g: not found
> $ sed: command garbled: s/-I[
>
> and this is exactly the output I used to get from the configure
> script. Apart from being uncosmetical, it also meant that CFLAGS
> didn't get set properly (which was the actual problem for me).
>
> Unportable shell programming _does_ cause problems, and if it didn't I
> wouldn't be bugging you about it.
Dude, don't cop an attitude with me. Nowhere in your message did it
say, "I found a problem that shows up when you do X." You didn't
mention that the problem occured when using `sh` and not when using
`bash`. I wanted to know what X was so I could reproduce the problem.
As a person in the position of reviewing patches for commit, I need to
know that the patch does a) nothing harmful, and b) at least something
useful. So today I learned something new about the differences
between sh and bash -- but at the expense of having to take time to
bother with this mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:58 2006