[ciphershed] Re: #if 0
- From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:57:31 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/2014 12:26 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Cox Sent: Tuesday, July 01,
>> 2014 0:07
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 6/30/2014 8:14 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>>> Should we fix code in these blocks or strip them form the code
>>> base?
>>
>> I find them informative. We could rip them at the first major
>> rewrite, where I hope we can replace the E4M code.
>
> Then I will fix the sprintf calls inside the if 0 blocks too.
Seriously, I would not bother fixing the sprintf calls in code we're
going to replace anyway. Instead of putting time into fixing it, I'd
rather work on replacing it. The rebranding patch looks good to me
as-is. I'd prefer to move on to build automation and testing.
I think we should talk about a set of release tasks.
Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=rheJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
