Re: mapi32: initialize session pointer to zero in MAPILogonEx (2nd resend)

[James Hawkins]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Louis. Lenders
 wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Juan Lang 
> To: Louis Lenders 
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Monday, 6 October, 2008 13:36:52
> Subject: Re: mapi32: initialize session pointer to zero in MAPILogonEx (2nd
> resend)
> > diff --git a/dlls/mapi32/mapi32_main.c b/dlls/mapi32/mapi32_main.c
> > index 936d435..5aace9a 100644
> > --- a/dlls/mapi32/mapi32_main.c
> > +++ b/dlls/mapi32/mapi32_main.c
> > @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ HRESULT WINAPI MAPILogonEx(ULONG_PTR uiparam,
> > LPWSTR profile,
> >  {
> >    FIXME("(0x%08lx %s %p 0x%08x %p) Stub\n", uiparam,
> >          debugstr_w(profile), password, flags, session);
> > - *session=0;
> > return SUCCESS_SUCCESS;
> >
> > }
> >
> > The rest of the file uses ' = 0', so please stay consistent.
>
> Also, the indenting is inconsistent:  the function uses 2-space
> indenting, whereas your change uses 4-space indenting.  Please match
> the file's existing style.
> --Juan
>
> Sorry , i don't understand what you mean with that comment above. When i
> apply the patch i get the code below:
>
> HRESULT WINAPI MAPILogonEx(ULONG_PTR uiparam, LPWSTR profile,
>     LPWSTR password, ULONG flags, LPMAPISESSION *session)
> {
>     FIXME("(0x%08lx %s %p 0x%08x %p) Stub\n", uiparam,
>           debugstr_w(profile), password, flags, session);
>     *session=0;
>     return SUCCESS_SUCCESS;
> }
>
> I don't see any 2-space nor 4-space indention introduced by this patch. I'll
> try to be more consistent with all this "space-thing" stuff, but is it now
> policy to reject patches because of missing/too much spaces?

Yes, that whitespace consistency has always been policy, though there
is no strict line, and some files have very inconsistent whitespace as
a result.
> I'm just trying to fix a bug you know.......

Aren't we all?
> I'll resend this patch, as for the other patch, i sent it in 5 times
> already, 2 times because of changing "stylish things" i was requested, then
> 3 times resend because it was not applied and i didn't receive any comments
> anymore about it. I don't think it's good idea to spam the list with just
> another resend, if there's another reason why it was rejected i'd be happy
> to know about it........

If a patch is silently dropped, ask on wine-devel or IRC why it was
dropped instead of resending it over and over again.  The more times
we see the same patch come through, usually unchanged, the more
trained we become at ignoring it.