thomas.mertes@gmx.at writes:
Ntdll atom stuff: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0064.html
Ntdll atom tests. http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0065.html The tests where verified by Dmitry Timoshkov in this mail: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/04/0192.html
IMHO, if a patch is correct (can be verified by tests) it should be applied, even if no application needs this functions (at the moment).
There is a very big difference between "correct" and "verified by tests". The atom patch may pass the tests but it's clearly not implemented the right way.
- Resend: Implement some ACE functions http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0129.html
This patch does not apply and I have asked Robert to resubmit an updated one.
If you really want to do manual patch tracking, the right way is *not* to post URLs to wine-devel. What you can do if people don't resubmit their patches in a reasonable time frame is to do it for them, regenerating the patch against latest CVS, and of course making sure to preserve all the information from the original mail.