[5/5] usp10: remote todo_wine

[Clinton Stimpson]

I can change the tests a bit, and change the currently empty functions 
to return E_NOTIMPL instead of S_OK.
Then I can do it piecemeal.
Is that how y'all want it?

Clint

Clinton Stimpson wrote:
> Ok.  There are 4 functions that have to be implemented at the same 
> time in order to not break any tests, because of how the tests were 
> written.
> A few days ago, I sent a single patch that implemented those 4 
> functions, including an update of the tests.
> It wasn't accepted, and it was suggested to break the patch up.  But, 
> I can't break it up without breaking the tests.
> I do have more patches coming after this batch, and those will be 
> smaller and atomic.
>
> So I guess I'm back to asking why my original patch wasn't accepted.  ??
> Should I resend it?
>
> Thanks,
> Clinton
>
> James Hawkins wrote:
>> On 12/14/06, Clinton Stimpson <cjstimpson at utwire.net> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Part 5 of 5.
>>> Remove many todo_wine's from the tests, now that the functions are
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>
>> You have to remove the todo_wine's in the same patch that fixes the
>> tests, or the tests will fail for at least one commit.  Patches have
>> to be atomic and error free, and a failing test is an error.
>>
>
>