On 7 March 2016 at 08:40, Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de wrote:
I assume this patch was missed somehow, resending.
No, the patch is just not very useful.
Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com writes:
On 7 March 2016 at 08:40, Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de wrote:
I assume this patch was missed somehow, resending.
No, the patch is just not very useful.
FWIW I asked Henri for clarification, and he said that the ddraw tests should be ported to ddraw[1247] so it's better to avoid changing them until that's completed.
On 15.03.2016 15:20, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com writes:
On 7 March 2016 at 08:40, Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de wrote:
I assume this patch was missed somehow, resending.
No, the patch is just not very useful.
FWIW I asked Henri for clarification, and he said that the ddraw tests should be ported to ddraw[1247] so it's better to avoid changing them until that's completed.
Unless Henri already has prepared patches which would not apply anymore, that does not really explain to me why such a trivial typo fix is rejected. It's better to fix typos before the code is duplicated in multiple tests, isn't it?
On 16 March 2016 at 04:44, Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de wrote:
Unless Henri already has prepared patches which would not apply anymore, that does not really explain to me why such a trivial typo fix is rejected. It's better to fix typos before the code is duplicated in multiple tests, isn't it?
I wouldn't blindly duplicate the tests, and wouldn't accept a patch from anyone else that did either. I'd pretty much be rewriting the messages again to be more consistent with the other tests the moment this test gets ported to ddraw[1247].c. And while zbufferbitdepth_test() is in better shape than most of the code in dsurface.c, it doesn't take all that much effort to find things to improve.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Henri Verbeet -
Sebastian Lackner