1 |
Matti Bickel wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
>> >> > Mixing 'gt' and 'ge' is a bad idea. |
5 |
>> >> |
6 |
>> >> Just outa curiosity, why? |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > Because it's inconsistent and one generally assumes that people will be |
9 |
>> > consistent with the way they test numbers. That way you only need to |
10 |
>> > read the number rather than continually checking every single line to |
11 |
>> > see how exactly it's tested for. |
12 |
>> > |
13 |
>> I don't see how this is inconsistent either: two tests are needed, so |
14 |
>> that both patches are only applied for >=2.6.22 and first only if |
15 |
>> >2.6.20. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The point is that if you stick to "ge" OR "gt", everyone could just skip |
18 |
> reading the comparison and focus on the numbers. Will be fixed in the |
19 |
> next release, along with kernel-2.4 support... |
20 |
> |
21 |
OIC: so the argument was it should be ge 2.6.21 as well? Does that catch all |
22 |
the same cases? |
23 |
|
24 |
I must say I find this criticism unusual: if someone were looking at the |
25 |
ebuild to check the numbers, I would guess it were because something was |
26 |
going wrong. As such, they would be paying attention to which version they |
27 |
were on, and what the tests were. I don't see the use-case for limiting |
28 |
what maintainers can do in such a fashion, but if it makes no difference to |
29 |
the outcome (ie which cases are covered), i guess it makes sense. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |