Feedback for patch submissions

[Gerald Pfeifer]

I'd like to suggest some form of feedback for patches submitted to
wine-patches, which is currently a bit of a black hole.

Some of the patches I sent did not committed (probably because
Alexandre didn't consider the cleanup there worthwhile enough,
which I even could understand):

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2002/11/0159.html

And the following patch was committed with modifications:

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2002/11/0176.html
 -> http://cvs.winehq.com/patch.py?id=6249

Getting a bit of feedback in these cases (directly with a Cc: to
wine-devel) would have been nice, not the least to educate submitters.

Gerald

[Alexandre Julliard]

Gerald Pfeifer  writes:
> And the following patch was committed with modifications:
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2002/11/0176.html
>
> -> http://cvs.winehq.com/patch.py?id=6249

There's no point in checking for signal.h or sys/types.h since we
don't check for them anywhere else; if a platform doesn't have them if
will fail to compile all over the place. We can start worrying about
that problem once we encounter it.
> Getting a bit of feedback in these cases (directly with a Cc: to
> wine-devel) would have been nice, not the least to educate submitters.

I'm not going to send feedback on every single change I make when
applying patches; but if you can't figure out why I changed something
you are more than welcome to ask.

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 13 Nov 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> There's no point in checking for signal.h or sys/types.h since we
> don't check for them anywhere else; if a platform doesn't have them if
> will fail to compile all over the place.

Ah, I see; thanks for the clarification.  (In this case it wasn't clear
whether your considered and rejected the patch, or whether it got "lost"
somehow; that's why I suggested some kind of feedback.)

Thanks for the clarification!

Gerald