Tony Lambregts <tony_lambregts(a)telusplanet.net> writes:
The patch is still in the wrong format. New files need to be diff'ed against /dev/null.
Thanks for the clarification! Winehq says new files can be included as separate attachments. Well, this is exactly one kind of problems/comments I expected for first contribution. Also, I found no mention of license info on the web page. I Cc-ed the devel list so that someone can fix the docs. Thanks for all: Feri.
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Tony Lambregts <tony_lambregts(a)telusplanet.net> writes:
The patch is still in the wrong format. New files need to be diff'ed against /dev/null.
Thanks for the clarification! Winehq says new files can be included as separate attachments. Well, this is exactly one kind of problems/comments I expected for first contribution.
I'm sorry, It looks like I am incorrect. It seems I am so used to seeing new files diff'ed that I assumed that was the prefered way. Unless Alexandre says he prefers one way or the other I guess I will leave the documentation the way it is.
Also, I found no mention of license info on the web page.
Well this makes Alexandre's job easier. It also makes it clear who owns copyright and what is permitted/required.
I Cc-ed the devel list so that someone can fix the docs.
Does anyone want me to put together a patch? -- Tony Lambregts
Tony Lambregts <tony_lambregts(a)telusplanet.net> writes:
I'm sorry, It looks like I am incorrect. It seems I am so used to seeing new files diff'ed that I assumed that was the prefered way. Unless Alexandre says he prefers one way or the other I guess I will leave the documentation the way it is.
Not sure where that documentation is, but it's much better to diff new files than to add separate attachments. The basic rules are: no attachments, no mime crap, no line wrapping, a single patch per mail. Basically if I can't do "cat raw_mail | patch -p0" it's in the wrong format. I'd guess that at most 20% of the submitted patches follow the rules :-(
Also, I found no mention of license info on the web page.
Well this makes Alexandre's job easier. It also makes it clear who owns copyright and what is permitted/required.
I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's no point in submitting them. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com
I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's no point in submitting them.
So if you don't specify, then it's under the LGPL and if you want it to also be available to ReWind you need to explicitly state that it's dual licensed somewhere in it? -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center
Mike Hearn a écrit:
I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's no point in submitting them.
So if you don't specify, then it's under the LGPL and if you want it to also be available to ReWind you need to explicitly state that it's dual licensed somewhere in it?
You can say it just once if it applies to all your patches. Ove keeps track of this at http://www.ping.uio.no/~ovehk/rewind/contrib-list.cgi. Or you can specify the licence(s) for each patch. Vincent
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Not sure where that documentation is, but it's much better to diff new files than to add separate attachments. The basic rules are: no attachments, no mime crap, no line wrapping, a single patch per mail. Basically if I can't do "cat raw_mail | patch -p0" it's in the wrong format. I'd guess that at most 20% of the submitted patches follow the rules :-(
I usually attach the diff, but make sure that the mime type allows it to be displayed. I received no complaints so far from Alexander, but now I'm not sure why. The eventual mail has Mime crap, but as it is not encoded Alexander should be able to do cat | patch. This also guarantees that there will be no line wraps. I belive this to be the best way, but people are so much against it that I have kept my mouth shut so far in these discussions. (it's not as if I submit too many patches lately :-( ) Shachar Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel(a)sun.consumer.org.il> writes:
I usually attach the diff, but make sure that the mime type allows it to be displayed. I received no complaints so far from Alexander, but now I'm not sure why.
The eventual mail has Mime crap, but as it is not encoded Alexander should be able to do cat | patch. This also guarantees that there will be no line wraps.
Mime headers are not really a problem, the problem is the awful quoted-printable garbage. If the patch is attached as normal text like yours are, that's OK, I can do the cat | patch stuff. And even though an inline patch would be better, it's certainly preferable to have a correct text attachment than a wrapped inline patch... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com
participants (6)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Ferenc Wagner -
Mike Hearn -
Shachar Shemesh -
Tony Lambregts -
Vincent Béron