Subject: Re: Applying outstanding patches
Tim Waugh wrote:
Yes, I went through those and 'w' and 'tests' were all I could find
Actually, I'm looking for descriptions of the patches, and regression tests,
not just the name of the author.
Would you mind letting me know which ones you need more information
I'm happy with this fix but am having difficulty making a test script work
reliably. As soon as I do, I'll check it in.
This clears to end of line after each output. I'm not sure that's the right
fix, but it's probably reasonable. However, the implementation appears wrong,
missing the "only_matching" and "match_icase" cases.
This bug was fixed yesterday in CVS by a simpler patch from Gordon Lack.
This removes a block of code that is admittedly bad, but removing it seems to
reduce functionality. Removing this code means that no insensitive matches are
coloured, whereas previously they would be coloured as long as the pattern was
specified in lower case. Is this intended to be used in conjunction with
another patch that adds back better functionality?
OK, I know what this intends to fix, and I have regression tests (in
tests/foad1.sh). The patch looks like it may depend on certain versions of
regex library functions. Can you state the requirements for this patch to
work? (e.g. What about "configure --with-included-regex"?)
The 'gofast' patch was rewritten and became the 'egf-speedup' and
'dfa-optional' patches, in case that's causing confusion.
Yup, that was causing confusion. Thanks for clarifying. So, could you give a
concise description (a few lines) of each of those? That is, what do they do,
and why, and is there any way of testing them?
If the changelog comment has no bug ID associated with it, I wrote the
corresponding patch myself when I noticed a bug (or it was pointed out
to me outside Bugzilla).
I apologise for my lack of knowledge of how Grep works. Like it or not,
compared to me, you are the expert. :-)