[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: patch filenames
> It is not as easy as you make it sound. Many, many times, putting
> all the patches together and removing pkgsrc-specific bits will
> result in a patch that will NOT be accepted by upstream. The
> reason: the patch will contain fixes and/or improvements for many
> different, unrelated stuff.
Amount af efforts for sorting patches into logical blocks is well
known. The question is WHEN these efforts are necessary. Every time
you change even one line in source code to keep your patches/ in a
consistent state? Or once before sending them to upstream maintainer.
I'd prefer to do this once.
> Upstream wants patches
As an upstream maintainer I'd tell you that I personally DO NOT NEED
user's patches at all and in truth I don't like them. Most often all
these patches are not good enough to be applied for a number of
reasons. So, I personally prefer bug report when user describe his
problem and nothing else. It is enough and I always tell
them "thank you".
> that are self-contained and do *just one* conceptual thing (not
> necessarily touching just one file). You then need to submit each
> of these patches as an independent bug report, with a correct
> explanation of the problem and why your solution is appropriate.
I believe that correct explanation and idea about how to fix it is
enough in most cases.
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
Main Index |
Thread Index |