[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: best format for patches

On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 06:41:30PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian May wrote:
> > However, it seems that you are not interested in supporting me, and
> > prefer to insult me instead, so unless this changes I will have to
> > continue on the not-so-popular option of duplicating the work. The other
> > options in README do not support package pools.
> What about sending *small* and *well* explained patches that will improve
> the system?  That's going to help all of us, if James finds the time
> to review and apply them. 

You felt my previous patch may have been too large?

Hmmm... not sure how to reduce it in size, the entire thing
was required for it to have significant benifit.

(actually that patch is now obsolete; I realized that there was
still one easy to fix bug that remained).

Or should I split the patch up into multiple parts, and
submit each one in turn, even though it may not have any immediate
benifit by itself?

This would split a 273 patch into a 244 line patch and a 29
line patch (not a very good representation IMHO, the longer
patch is actually "cleaner" then the shorter patch).

I am not sure how I could have explained it any better, either.
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Reply to: