[rfc][icedtea-web] Add netx-dist-dist-tests-whitelist to .hgignore

[Jacob Wisor]

On 02/24/2015 03:18 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> ...snip...
>>>>>> You understand it right. The reason to keep the file was to make it
>>>>>> simple. I'm
>>>>>> 50/50 to remove the file. Then, if file is not found, use default ".*". If
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> found, then it is used (no metter what is it)
>>>>>
>>>>> Reads very reasonable to me and seems to be a far better approach than the
>>>>> current one.
>>>>
>>>> On second sight, yes. Me or Jie (Thoughts?)  will implement.
>>>
>>> At ached  patch seems to do the job. The real removal from the repo maybe more
>>> fun. Once this     is approve, I will proceed with removal and correct ignoring
>>> of our file.
>>>
>>> diff -r a1b50e850558 Makefile.am
>>> --- a/Makefile.am    Wed Feb 18 18:47:18 2015 +0100
>>> +++ b/Makefile.am    Fri Feb 20 15:34:07 2015 +0100
>>> @@ -193,12 +193,15 @@
>>>  endif
>>>  endif
>>>
>>> +# if you create netx-dist-tests-whitelist in top directory, and palce "expr
>>> match" regexes
>>> +# (separate by space) into it, you can control reproducers which compile
>>> or/xor run.
>>
>> Err no, please put this into the "Building" or "Testing" section of the README
>> file. I do not think
>> package and distro maintainers are going to take a peek at Makefile.am file,
>> especially when they
>> are interested in running tests before releasing their package. Anyhow, this
>> isn't probably the best
>> place to put this kind of information.
>
> Ufff.. I'm against moving to readme. I hope nobody expect itw (*few*  people
> really)  developers is interested in file. Not even maintainers.
>
> The reproducers are described on wikipage[1], which is still moreover correct.
>
> Actually when somebody developing ITW is looking for this whitelist, the
> makefile would be his better friend, or not?
>
> The testing part of readme is directed to different audition. And the section of
> reproducers is intentionally missing.
>>
>> Besides, please check the spelling before checking in: palce -> place.
>> Are the regexes really separated by a simple space character and not by a new
>> line character? What
> Sure, it is IFS as it is iterated in simle loop.
>> about test names with spaces? One could probably escape those with \x20 or
>> \u0020, I guess. But I
>
> Sure it is IFS what is used to iterate over the IFS separate strings. So by
> default \n \t and space

Yeah, I sure know about encoding spaces in regexs. ;-) I just wanted to see a 
clarification in the documentation on the name separating character(s). 
Referring to the IFS list encoding scheme will suffice.

> The spaces in the regexes are generally not supported, but you can workaround
> itr by knowledge that it is expt match:
>
> As names with spaces are supported for reproducers. The way how to use those in
> filter is:
> .*text\swith\sspaces where \s is wild char for any type of space in bas regex
>
> see:
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "a\sa"
> 3
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "asa"
> 0
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "a a"
> 3
>
>
>> just would like to make sure the format gets properly documented. ;-)
>
> Long story short, I would like to stay with current patch as it is - of course
> with fixed spelling and enriched info as you wished.
>
> Are you ok with it?

Yep, is ok. Thank you!

Jacob