On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
The submission and processing of patches is not something totally alien to me, though the specific history and conclusions reached w.r.t. wine mail lists is. That said, you needn't crusade the inlining argument by dispatching me to the list archives about whether multiple patches are "discouraged" or not.
I haven't dispatched you to the archives to be rude, but to avoid rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Saving time is important, at least in my books, as I have a chronic lack of it :) My point is that most of the people here, in particular Alexandre, prefers inlined patches for many reasons, some of which I've outlined already.
I really don't understand why we have this entire argument in the first place. One thing that is certain is that one wine-patches we would like *ideally* to receive patches inlined. As you say, the point of having such a filter is to accomodate as many different "styles" of submission, and we do that by translating all those style (if possible) to the prefered style, and that one is inlined.
So we have two orthogonal things here: 1. Should we have such a filter? 2. Should we dissus the prefered style? I don't think I'd like to reopen the n-th time the discussion about (2), but if you feel you have good arguments...
BTW, the purpuse of wine-patches is twofold: 1. For Alexandre to apply a patch. He has spoken before, and he prefers inlined patches; (please read the section on style http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-devel/style-notes ) 2. For others to review patches, and again, inlined patches are better. The case of multiple patch submission is a red herring. In the 7 years I've been with the project, I haven't seen a single case of someone submitting alternate patches. Yes, there were people submitting mutliple (separate) patches as one email, but this is strongly discouraged, as I've already said. And even if that happens, just letting them be would nicely take care of things.