Hi Oded, On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, Oded Naveh wrote: > Thank you for your message, it is heart warming. Heh, great. (Thanks for that feedback! :) > I admit there was the other point that got me disappointed and frustrated > when I wanted to step in and wasn't sure which way, but I already > communicated that and was rewarded since by introduction to the beautiful > tool named Subversion. Feel free to use it more. You could also create a personal branch and experiment there. > That personal note aside, I think it's important to let new-comers feel > they're being watched. Then help them get useful requires directions and > feedback. Yup, I think so too. > I agree the second one is somewhat 'intrusive' as you put it and not > necessary for the bug fix, which is why it is a second patch. So let's revert it now, and then you can re-submit it in different commits?! (Should I do the revert or do you want to do it yourself?) r56592 is the second, which should be reverted. r56513 should be kept - but please edit debian/changelog and describe what the patch does. (Also the commit contained many unrelated whitespace changes, which should be avoided. You can view what you are about to commit with "svn diff".) > I can see that each contains some 'BTW changes' that could be omitted. Don't worry, we all learn, we all make mistakes, we are all humans :) > The size of each is much due to small changes in many files, many applied > by the build system. I consider it better to have them all committed than > just committing the cause leaving the effect to happen at some undetermined > time. But I could commit them separately. Yes, please. (For next times) > So far I didn't get to the "Branching and Merging" topic, I only used > 'revert' on my 'working copy'. That's how I revert to a known old version: svn up rm $somefile svn up -r12345 $somefile # goes back to r12345 cp $somefile $somefile.my12345 svn up $somefile # tells svn that the file is up2date again mv $somefile.my12345 $somefile svn ci > I woun't be offended if someone else reverts > any of these check-ins and I will consider that option if I'd think I could > improve significantly. I've now looked a third time at your second patch, and now think we should kept it :) So the next step is to upload the package and test it. I would do that, but would very much appreciate if you could first improve debian/changelog (to describe better what has changed.) > As for the profile question (bug#1315), I didn't commit that because It's > much too Intrusive, on the other hand I think it's needed to fix soon. > I'm now encouraged to discuss it on-list, will start a topic for that > matter. Please do. And please open a new thread :) regards, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.