Re: ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Detlef Riekenberg]

On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> ---
>  configure           |  303
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
after a different Patch was commited.


-- 
 
By by ... Detlef

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Michael Karcher]

Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 09:30 +0200 schrieb Detlef Riekenberg:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > ---
> >  configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> after a different Patch was commited.

I feel the same, but I thought that configure is not in the
toplevel .gitignore on some purpose I don't understand. If I should not
include that file into the patch, shouldn't the generated .gitignore be
fixed? (This also applies to include/config.h.in)

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Detlef Riekenberg" wine.dev(a)web.de wrote:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > ---
> >  configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> after a different Patch was commited.

Btw, how does patchwatcher handle that? Does it detect that in the case
of changing config.h.in, dlls/Makefile.in, server/protocol.def it needs
to regenerate the files by running autoconf, tools/make_requests, or
tools/make_makefiles?

-- 
Dmitry.

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Kai Blin]

On Monday 18 August 2008 09:50:05 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Detlef Riekenberg" wine.dev(a)web.de wrote:
> > On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > > ---
> > >  configure           |  303
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> > This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> > after a different Patch was commited.
>
> Btw, how does patchwatcher handle that? Does it detect that in the case
> of changing config.h.in, dlls/Makefile.in, server/protocol.def it needs
> to regenerate the files by running autoconf, tools/make_requests, or
> tools/make_makefiles?

Not at all.

Cheers,
Kai

-- 
Kai Blin
WorldForge developer  http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer        http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member     http://www.samba.org/samba/team/
--
Will code for cotton.

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Francois Gouget]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > ---
> >  configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.

How do you do that with Git?

When I modify configure.ac I do a local commit of configure.ac and 
configure, since they are a single changeset. But then when I use 
git-format-patch to prepare the email to wine-patches, both configure.ac 
and configure get included in that email.

So do you then edit the email that got prepared by git-format-patch? Do 
you do two local commits (seems like a pain and ugly)?

-- 
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>              http://fgouget.free.fr/
                  Hiroshima '45 - Czernobyl '86 - Windows '95

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Michael Stefaniuc]

Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> > On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > > ---
> > >  configure           |  303
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
>
> How do you do that with Git?
>
> When I modify configure.ac I do a local commit of configure.ac and 
> configure, since they are a single changeset. But then when I use 
> That is not really a single changeset. Not logically (one a real change
> the other an autogenerated one) nor technically as both files can be
> modified independently without breaking the compile of Wine.
> git-format-patch to prepare the email to wine-patches, both configure.ac 
> and configure get included in that email.
>
> So do you then edit the email that got prepared by git-format-patch? Do 
> you do two local commits (seems like a pain and ugly)?
> Two commits is easier and cleaner imho. You don't have to edit the patch
> before sending and it's easier to rebase on upstream after Alexandre
> committed your patches. The configure patch you can then just "git
> rebase --skip". Hmm ... actually you can do the same with the combined
> patch too. Though the configure patch can have a nice commit message
> that makes it visually easy to see that you can safely skip the patch
> without loosing anything. With the combined patch one would have to
> check that really only the configure part conflicted (Alexandre might
> have edited the configure.ac part).

bye
	michael