Re: gdi: [2 of 3] Add header for GetCharABCWidthI

[Mike McCormack]

Jeff L wrote:
> I have repackaged this as package.

Please don't split patches that depend on each other to make Wine 
compile and work correctly, or add dead code.

The point of having small patches is to make Wine easier to regression 
test, so we want things to work between every commit.
> +//    FIXME("%p, %d, %d, %p\n", font, firstChar, count, buffer);

Either remove the FIXME completely, or make it a TRACE.  Also, C++ 
comments are not portable in C, so use standard C comments.
> -
>    }
> - else
> -
>    for(c = 0; c < count; c++) {

How about using indenting consistent with the rest of the code in the file?

thanks,

Mike

gdi: [2 of 3] Add header for GetCharABCWidthI

[Jeff Latimer]

Mike McCormack wrote:
> Jeff L wrote:
> > I have repackaged this as package.
>
> Please don't split patches that depend on each other to make Wine 
> compile and work correctly, or add dead code.
>
> The point of having small patches is to make Wine easier to regression 
> test, so we want things to work between every commit.

Mike, take the point that everyone has pointed out about dead code and 
c99.  An accident of enthusiasm of Easter.  I thought that numbering 
patches allowed for dependencies.  I took the point from a recent 
comment and took a punt.  As far as I can tell, patch 2 does not depend 
on 1 or 3 but 3 depends on 1 and 2.  If I put them together, past 
experience says that I would have difficulty in getting them through.  
If I submit them one at a time it would take days to get them through 
iteratively.

Jeff

gdi: [2 of 3] Add header for GetCharABCWidthI

[Mike Hearn]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:26:19 +1000, Jeff Latimer wrote:
> If I put them together, past 
> experience says that I would have difficulty in getting them through.  
> If I submit them one at a time it would take days to get them through 
> iteratively.

I wouldn't worry too much, Alexandre is the final judge of all these
things. The rule of thumb I use is actually *not* to break things up as
small as they could possibly go, but rather to separate things into
components that are logically related and can be applied without breaking
Wine or causing any regressions. So for instance I wouldn't bother
separating header changes from the "meat" of the changes. But everybody
has their own approach and style - I have no doubt you'll settle on yours
soon! :)