On 12/11/2016 01:36 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Dec 10,  7:59pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> }
> } Yabut there's a few other things that are very specific that they won't
> } run as superuser, so you know you needn't worry about them as the
> } messages are careful to explain.  Shouldn't this one be similar?
>
> Ideally yes, but in this case we're re-running B02 from inside V10;
> B02 got changed without V10 being changed, so my question is, where
> do we fix it, or do we just not bother because running the tests as
> superuser is so unusual in the first place.
>
Not mine to say of course, I suspect that a message would be easy 
enough, but any complexities are to be avoided. I'm a spit and polish 
fanatic, polish it until it gleams. Not the culture in unix/linux tho -- 
I suppose something  so  huge can never be polished like we polished 
things in DOS.