Re: include: result confusion?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:59:43 +0200 Hannah Schroeter <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>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.).
>

Ubuntu is releasing in about a week with 1.2.8.  If somone could send me a 
diff to revert this regression in the next few days I can get it fixed.  
I'd really appreciate it.


Scott K