From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixed bug in org-entry-get-with-inheritance
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:33:47 +0100
Message-ID: <87ha6wd3hg.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
References: <lfbote$vv9$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<87bnx9qbcq.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>	<87vbvcptqt.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
	<87ob14d4o7.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>	<87r460pr8d.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49239)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPdIc-0002T5-Pa
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:34:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPdIX-0001xF-Ku
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:34:14 -0400
Received: from rs249.mailgun.us ([209.61.151.249]:54515)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPdIX-0001x9-Fy
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:34:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87r460pr8d.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of
	"Mon,	17 Mar 2014 20:20:02 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

>> Can you tell a bit more about what's wrong with the test?
>
> There is nothing wrong with those tests.

I meant: can you tell me how the tests fail?

I'm interested in the answer.

>> If the patch is good and the tests are outdated, I'd rather
>> fix the tests than revert the patch to re-revert it again.
>
> No, the patch is bad, otherwise it wouldn't break the tests.

Sorry, I don't buy this.

Or maybe explain me why the patch is wrong.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien