Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:35:03 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Julio Merino <julio@meroh.net> Cc: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, sjg@juniper.net Subject: Re: Refactoring of *.test.mk Message-ID: <20131015153503.C6EDF5807E@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <CADyfeQVCTDmFqjpkkkOZcZDEQzTEf=h=RyTcTs2GPQx-XhHm6w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADyfeQVTx3LUo3Q-bcPPmG3Xx4TPtRcJB1%2Bzk6ms_-zz%2Box6eg@mail.gmail.com> <CADyfeQW5z6aWH1sfnGF5mbWGeHap-o4j7Y4ttqGRU5WDqMbABg@mail.gmail.com> <20131015062139.DAD595807E@chaos.jnpr.net> <CADyfeQVCTDmFqjpkkkOZcZDEQzTEf=h=RyTcTs2GPQx-XhHm6w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:54:14 -0400, Julio Merino writes: >I suspect that with 10 branched, we don't need approval from re@ for >submission at this point; is that correct? head was restricted until yesterday I think. >That said, I think it's worth to merge this into 10 (now or after >release, doesn't matter much). Given that this touches yet-unused >files, it shouldn't be a major concern for re@. The reason for merging >into 10 is that it'd be nice if any future tests written in HEAD for >regressions encountered in 10 could be pulled up into the branch with >ease along the actual fixes. Sounds reasonable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131015153503.C6EDF5807E>