Re: ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Detlef Riekenberg]

On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> configure           |  303
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
after a different Patch was commited.

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Michael Karcher]

Am Montag, den 18.08.2008, 09:30 +0200 schrieb Detlef Riekenberg:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> after a different Patch was commited.

I feel the same, but I thought that configure is not in the
toplevel .gitignore on some purpose I don't understand. If I should not
include that file into the patch, shouldn't the generated .gitignore be
fixed? (This also applies to include/config.h.in)

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Detlef Riekenberg" [e-mail] wrote:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> after a different Patch was commited.

Btw, how does patchwatcher handle that? Does it detect that in the case
of changing config.h.in, dlls/Makefile.in, server/protocol.def it needs
to regenerate the files by running autoconf, tools/make_requests, or
tools/make_makefiles?

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Kai Blin]

On Monday 18 August 2008 09:50:05 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Detlef Riekenberg" [e-mail] wrote:
> > On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > > configure           |  303
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
> > This will reduce the risk, that your Patch does not apply
> > after a different Patch was commited.
>
> Btw, how does patchwatcher handle that? Does it detect that in the case
> of changing config.h.in, dlls/Makefile.in, server/protocol.def it needs
> to regenerate the files by running autoconf, tools/make_requests, or
> tools/make_makefiles?

Not at all.

Cheers,
Kai

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Francois Gouget]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > configure           |  303
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.

How do you do that with Git?

When I modify configure.ac I do a local commit of configure.ac and 
configure, since they are a single changeset. But then when I use 
git-format-patch to prepare the email to wine-patches, both configure.ac 
and configure get included in that email.

So do you then edit the email that got prepared by git-format-patch? Do 
you do two local commits (seems like a pain and ugly)?

ntdll/file: Add sub-second resolution to NtQueryInformationFile

[Michael Stefaniuc]

Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> > On So, 2008-08-17 at 19:03 +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > > configure           |  303
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > You should never include autogenerated code in a Patch.
>
> How do you do that with Git?
>
> When I modify configure.ac I do a local commit of configure.ac and 
> configure, since they are a single changeset. But then when I use

That is not really a single changeset. Not logically (one a real change
the other an autogenerated one) nor technically as both files can be
modified independently without breaking the compile of Wine.
> git-format-patch to prepare the email to wine-patches, both configure.ac 
> and configure get included in that email.
>
> So do you then edit the email that got prepared by git-format-patch? Do 
> you do two local commits (seems like a pain and ugly)?

Two commits is easier and cleaner imho. You don't have to edit the patch
before sending and it's easier to rebase on upstream after Alexandre
committed your patches. The configure patch you can then just "git
rebase --skip". Hmm ... actually you can do the same with the combined
patch too. Though the configure patch can have a nice commit message
that makes it visually easy to see that you can safely skip the patch
without loosing anything. With the combined patch one would have to
check that really only the configure part conflicted (Alexandre might
have edited the configure.ac part).

bye
    michael