manual patch tracking system for ntdll

Hello

Since I am following the ntdll development, I noticed some
not applied patches:

- Ntdll atom stuff:
  http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0064.html

- Ntdll atom tests.
  http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0065.html
  The tests where verified by Dmitry Timoshkov in this mail:
  http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/04/0192.html

- Resend: Implement some ACE functions
  http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0129.html

IMHO, if a patch is correct (can be verified by tests) it should be applied,
even if no application needs this functions (at the moment). If this
functions are needed later, some implementation (with FIXMEs) is
already there as base for further development. This is easier than
looking for a (possibly outdated) patch in the archieves.

I see the wine source also as a information repository, which is
easier to access, than a patch archive. In the worst case it should
be possible that a function is accepted but deactivated with #ifdef.

Greetings
Thomas Mertes

[Alexandre Julliard]

[e-mail] writes:
> -
>
> Ntdll atom stuff:
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0064.html
> -
>
> Ntdll atom tests.
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0065.html
> The tests where verified by Dmitry Timoshkov in this mail:
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/04/0192.html
>
> IMHO, if a patch is correct (can be verified by tests) it should be applied,
> even if no application needs this functions (at the moment).

There is a very big difference between "correct" and "verified by
tests". The atom patch may pass the tests but it's clearly not
implemented the right way.
> - Resend: Implement some ACE functions
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0129.html

This patch does not apply and I have asked Robert to resubmit an
updated one.

If you really want to do manual patch tracking, the right way is *not*
to post URLs to wine-devel. What you can do if people don't resubmit
their patches in a reasonable time frame is to do it for them,
regenerating the patch against latest CVS, and of course making sure
to preserve all the information from the original mail.

[Bill Medland]

On April 15, 2003 09:14 am, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> [e-mail] writes:

snip
> > IMHO, if a patch is correct (can be verified by tests) it should be
> > applied, even if no application needs this functions (at the moment).
>
> There is a very big difference between "correct" and "verified by
> tests".

Hear, Hear!!!

snip