Is there a case when you would want to be explicit about which patches are
not applicable, as opposed to just emitting them from the included_patches
list?


2014-04-01 21:14 GMT+02:00 James McCoy <notifications@github.com>:

> In src/version.c:
>
> > @@ -225,6 +225,12 @@
> >
> >  static int included_patches[] = {
> >    // Add new patch number below this line
> > +  166,
> > +  165,
> > +  164,
> > +  163,
>
>  Patch 7.4.161
> Problem: Crash in Python exception handling.
> Solution: Only use exception variables if did_throw is set. (ZyX)
>
> Shouldn't be listed because if_python was removed.
>
> Patch 7.4.162
> Problem: Running tests in shadow dir doesn't work.
> Solution: Add testdir/sautest to the shadow target. (James McCoy)
>
> This specific instance of this problem doesn't exist because Vim's
> makefiles were replaced, and the incentive I have for using shadowdir
> (building different configurations of Vim) doesn't exist with neovim
> because the --with-feature configure flag and if_* files were removed.
> Regardless, this isn't something that would be relevant to a plugin.
>
> 7.4.163 & 7.4.164 are both Windows IME related, so they shouldn't be
> listed (functionality doesn't exist, as was pointed out in #438<https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/438>
> ).
>
> 7.4.165 is a change to runtime files, specifically the example vimrc.
> There's no need to perform a has('patchXXX') check for that, IMO, so I'd
> elide that as well.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/445/files#r11176195>
> .
>