Re: best format for patches
Brian May wrote:
> 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?
Yes. I found out that, when I'm busy, large patches need to be
postponed even for reviewing. Small patches, however, that only add
little functionality of add an easy fix can be reviewed earlier and
applied earlier. Of course, I can't anticipate how James works and
how his workload evolves.
> Hmmm... not sure how to reduce it in size, the entire thing
> was required for it to have significant benifit.
If I would be affected, I'd like to have it split up into small
pieces, not all submitted at the same time (to avoid a flood of
patches that may have a similar effect as a large patch).
> 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?
I'd go for it.
Regards,
Joey
--
Never trust an operating system you don't have source for!
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: