re: winmm: waveOutReset returns all buffers.

[Dan Kegel]

Fails to apply here.  (Requires fuzz, which Alexandre says is verboten.)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: 79321: winmm: waveOutReset returns all buffers.
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

This is an experimental automated build and test service.
Please feel free to ignore this email while we work the kinks out.

For more info about this message, see http://wiki.winehq.org/BuildBot

The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder runtests-default
while building Wine.
Full details are available at:
http://buildbot.kegel.com/builders/runtests-default/builds/63 (though
maybe not for long, as I'm still reinstalling the buildbot
periodically while experimenting)
BUILD FAILED: failed git

Errors:
error: patch failed: dlls/winmm/waveform.c:1653
error: dlls/winmm/waveform.c: patch does not apply

winmm: waveOutReset returns all buffers.

Dan,
> Fails to apply here.  (Requires fuzz, which Alexandre says is verboten.)
> error: dlls/winmm/waveform.c: patch does not apply

This raises the question about when to use [PATCH X/Y] and/or whether
buildbots should apply all precedingly submitted patches that did not fail.

I tend to use X/Y subject lines when patches depend on each other in the
sense that one should not apply patch #2 without #1.

There was no such dependency here, one could commit or reject each individually.

The only particularity about yesterday's patches is that there were 2 patches
to the same function, waveOutReset. Trying to apply the second one without
the first obviously needs a "fuzz", yet the second patch *can* be used stand alone.

Luckily, AJ is much smarter than the bot, and all patches went in.

Regards,
 Jörg Höhle

winmm: waveOutReset returns all buffers.

[Dan Kegel]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM,   wrote:
> This raises the question about when to use [PATCH X/Y] and/or whether
> buildbots should apply all precedingly submitted patches that did not fail.
>
> I tend to use X/Y subject lines when patches depend on each other in the
> sense that one should not apply patch #2 without #1.
>
> There was no such dependency here, one could commit or reject each individually.
>
> The only particularity about yesterday's patches is that there were 2 patches
> to the same function, waveOutReset. Trying to apply the second one without
> the first obviously needs a "fuzz", yet the second patch *can* be used stand alone.
>
> Luckily, AJ is much smarter than the bot, and all patches went in.

Yeah.  On the other hand, he specifically requested that buildbot
be strict about not allowing fuzz.  I *think* that implies he'd
prefer the X/Y notation if it's required to prevent fuzz.
- Dan