There is something concerning submitting patches that bothers me to no end: inlining vs. attaching them.
Yes!!! Finally. Another flamewar. :-)
I will mainly comment how I submit my patches. I don't personally care that much what others do.
However if Alexandre finds some way more convenient I can certain change...
I don't know about others, but for me 99/1 rule applies: I at least skim over 99% of the patches inlines in the message, whereas I bother to read at most 1% of the ones attached/tar.gzed/ziped. Maybe I'm an extreme case, but there's got to be more to it than my personal quirks.
If a patch is sent to wine-patches, it's sent there for peer review. If you don't want the review, send it to Alexandre directly, even though I suggest this is avoided as much as possible. However, it you do send it to wine-patches, please, *please* inline it!
What about a nice patch submission policy: -- unified diff only (required)
Agreed (if the file already exists).
-- have a decent subject (recommended)
Agreed.
-- a long description (optional, if the change warrants it)
Agreed.
-- a meaningful ChangeLog entry (required)
Agreed.
-- new files, if any, included in patch, diffed against /dev/null (required)
I currently use .tar files since it handles the case that Uwe was talking about that is new directories.
But then, I use a script to generate my patches, so I can make the normal case (no new directory) as a diff against /dev/null.
-- patch inlined at the end of the message (required)
If it is inlined at all it should certainly be at the end, agreed.
-- one changeset per message
What about dependent changesets? Or changeset that are otherwise logically dependent (even if not syntactically or semantically)?
I guess they could be perhaps is multiple messages like:
Subject: Fix various bugs (part 1 of 3) Subject: Fix various bugs (part 2 of 3) Subject: Fix various bugs (part 3 of 3)
I currently mail all my patches from Windows (Outlook) just out of habit I guess since it is where I send my other mail so that would require manual work.
However I guess I could mail them directly from my Linux box using another script...
On September 9, 2002 03:02 pm, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Yes!!! Finally. Another flamewar. :-)
I'm good at that, aren't I? :)))
I will mainly comment how I submit my patches. I don't personally care that much what others do.
Aha, but you should, if people are to review each other's patches. That's a very important point of free software, last time I checked...
I currently use .tar files since it handles the case that Uwe was talking about that is new directories.
There's no case to handle. patch will do that, see Alexandre's post.
What about dependent changesets?
Mark them so at the beginning of the message: "This patch depends on ..."
Or changeset that are otherwise logically dependent (even if not syntactically or semantically)?
Same.
-- Dimi.
Patrik Stridvall a écrit :
There is something concerning submitting patches that bothers me to no end: inlining vs. attaching them.
FYI there's the tools/genpatch in the wine tools directory that handles most of the hassle of patch generation (new files...)... I did add a few more options... if someone's interested in them, let me know
A+
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Eric Pouech -
Patrik Stridvall