Re: [1/7] avifile: Initial test data and simple test for avifil32 depends
On 12/30/2009 03:21 AM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
This patch depends on Detlef Riekenberg's patch from June 2008 and expects it to have been applied: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056310.html
It was not committed due to bug 14085: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14085
Can't you just submit that initial test framework with the 3 imports (if all 3 are indeed needed)? The bug will of course not be closed but at least some of your work could be committed. -- Cheers, Paul.
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 12/30/2009 03:21 AM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
This patch depends on Detlef Riekenberg's patch from June 2008 and expects it to have been applied: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056310.html
It was not committed due to bug 14085: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14085
Can't you just submit that initial test framework with the 3 imports (if all 3 are indeed needed)? The bug will of course not be closed but at least some of your work could be committed.
My work (and Detlef's too I think) only needs avifil32 and importing that, as Detlef suggested, was the way I was able to test things. I understand that Alexandre would not accept such a patch though. Otherwise I would say Detlef's patch should be submitted with this import so that my patches can be committed on top of that. I think it was also stupid of me to send all the patches as a serie, while they do not actually depend on each other. I'm not sure though how I would submit the patches next time. Should I send the tests depending on each other in a separate serie from the actual fixes or is the right way actually to send a fix with it's test in the same serie? Thanks, Julius
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg <julius.schwartzenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it was also stupid of me to send all the patches as a serie, while they do not actually depend on each other. I'm not sure though how I would submit the patches next time. Should I send the tests depending on each other in a separate serie from the actual fixes or is the right way actually to send a fix with it's test in the same serie?
It's better to send the test in first, in case the fix isn't committed. As for the series, if the patches don't depend on each other, there's no need to make a series, though it doesn't hurt anything. -- -Austin
On 01/01/2010 10:11 PM, Austin English wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg <julius.schwartzenberg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it was also stupid of me to send all the patches as a serie, while they do not actually depend on each other. I'm not sure though how I would submit the patches next time. Should I send the tests depending on each other in a separate serie from the actual fixes or is the right way actually to send a fix with it's test in the same serie?
It's better to send the test in first, in case the fix isn't committed. As for the series, if the patches don't depend on each other, there's no need to make a series, though it doesn't hurt anything. It does hurt to make independent patches into a patch series: if Alexandre rejects one patch in the series that will block the rest of the patches.
bye michael
participants (4)
-
Austin English -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Paul Vriens