Re: include: result confusion?

Hi!

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:46:30AM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

>> table in section 5.2 (recursive result of None should cause the include
>> mechanism to throw PermError).

>> A test for that passed before the update (with libspf2 1.2.5), however
>> fails now.

>> Am I correct in my interpretation? Should this get fixed again, so that
>> a None from the included record should result in a PermError overall?

>You are correct.  I am tasked with making libspf2 pass the test suite.
>I am behind.

I have actually a few patches still pending with Shevek, and prepared
one to revert a change that made my own test for this fail (after
passing with 1.2.5).

Thanks for confirming my interpretation of the RFC, so I won't have to
change my local test and I will be able to keep the local change in our
local revision control systems (the one for the company's development
and from whence the deployed software is build, and my own for merging
stuff around with S.).

Kind regards,

Hannah.