Re: depend take 2

[Rory Toma]

I'll give it a try and poke around today.

On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 10:06, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > After poking around, I think the following is the best course of
> > action...
> > 
> > Revert to the old code, and then, regardless of whether we revert or
> > not, make the following changes: 1) Change the syntax to "depends"
> > and add noise word "on", so we can have
> > 
> > check foo
> > depends on bar
> > 
> > so it's nice and clear
> 
> depend is changed to depends in the new check-in. Yesterdays check-in
> had a bug with regards to the do_validate flag as you rightly pointed
> out. But I have worked some more with the depend stuff today and I
> hope it's nailed now. IMHO I think the new code works better since it
> actually traverse the dependency graph and restart entries when they
> should be restarted. I have also cleaned up the code a bit. All in all
> I advise strongly that we stay with the new implementaion unless
> serious problems should pop-up, which I don't think.
-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 5       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part