From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-27181-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
id 1IhY6M-0002KC-KZ
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:07:55 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l9FLuWfG004256;
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:56:32 GMT
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9FLqNEY029538
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:53:03 GMT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE3C657E4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:26:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -0.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.021 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.511,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id S8-ZSGb-AzFS for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:26:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CCA657B8
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:26:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1IhXDh-0003fE-Fo
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:11:28 +0000
Received: from 82.153.64.56 ([82.153.64.56])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:11:25 +0000
Received: from slong by 82.153.64.56 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:11:25 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-cluster/pvfs2: ChangeLog pvfs2-2.6.3-r1.ebuild
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:05:25 +0100
Message-ID: <ff0kf3$anu$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <E1IghAR-0001BB-Oe@stork.gentoo.org> <20071014063029.GT23990@supernova> <20071014064540.GA27397@phaenix.haell.com> <20071014075021.GU23990@supernova> <fet0nq$2jj$2@ger.gmane.org> <20071014140322.GA3422@pluto.local>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.64.56
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 9cfe0aa2-6ee1-4d39-8ecd-942ce7182a5c
X-Archives-Hash: 5ad115549c2e287669c73ba61c19ac6d
Matti Bickel wrote:
> Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> > Mixing 'gt' and 'ge' is a bad idea.
>> >>
>> >> Just outa curiosity, why?
>> >
>> > Because it's inconsistent and one generally assumes that people will be
>> > consistent with the way they test numbers. That way you only need to
>> > read the number rather than continually checking every single line to
>> > see how exactly it's tested for.
>> >
>> I don't see how this is inconsistent either: two tests are needed, so
>> that both patches are only applied for >=2.6.22 and first only if
>> >2.6.20.
>
> The point is that if you stick to "ge" OR "gt", everyone could just skip
> reading the comparison and focus on the numbers. Will be fixed in the
> next release, along with kernel-2.4 support...
>
OIC: so the argument was it should be ge 2.6.21 as well? Does that catch all
the same cases?
I must say I find this criticism unusual: if someone were looking at the
ebuild to check the numbers, I would guess it were because something was
going wrong. As such, they would be paying attention to which version they
were on, and what the tests were. I don't see the use-case for limiting
what maintainers can do in such a fashion, but if it makes no difference to
the outcome (ie which cases are covered), i guess it makes sense.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list