Juan Lang <juan.lang <at> gmail.com> writes:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056911.html
Ah. That's not enough to judge where your patches are going.
I already explained, see http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=14342 and http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056659.html. That's what i was intended to go to.
A
series of patches, adding a stub program, then adding a little more to it, and so on, would help judge the final product, while considering each piece independently.
Here;s the whole patch that i sent a while ago, but i was advised after that to first sent a simple stub because the patch was too large:
http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=14343
It has the risk of getting rejected partway
or wholesale, but has a higher likelihood of getting comments. It also removes a lot of the roundtrip time with patches.
Sorry if the guidance isn't very clear. Don't be afraid to ask AJ on irc for more feedback too. --Juan
Anyway. thanks for your explanation