about patches on SourceForge
I just put up one my patches from this past week on SOurceForge. Question: WWould you all prefer to have the "raw patch" just include the actually patch/diff and for the first comment to be the patch description (and legal stuff?) or would you prefer for the patch description and legal stuff to be part of the "raw patch". I am inclined to think that the former would be preferable. Is there some "apply patch" button in SourceForge that would require the "raw patch" to actually be raw? Go check it out and you will know what I am talking about. http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=browse&group_id=5470&set=open When I get an good opinion from some of you I will send up my other patches. Trent -- Trent Mick trentm@activestate.com
When I get an good opinion from some of you I will send up my other patches.
How do you qualify a "good" opinion? One that matches yours? <wink> This is all too hard until Guido gets back. But personally I believe the raw patch should be just the CVS diff output, and the comments should reflect all other text, including the release notice while it is still necessary. I hope my opinion is good enough :-) Mark.
Mark Hammond writes:
This is all too hard until Guido gets back. But personally I believe the raw patch should be just the CVS diff output, and the comments should reflect all other text, including the release notice while it is still necessary.
Sounds good to me. Let's do it this way until there's a god reason to do it differently. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:45:54PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
Mark Hammond writes:
This is all too hard until Guido gets back. But personally I believe the raw patch should be just the CVS diff output, and the comments should reflect all other text, including the release notice while it is still necessary.
Sounds good to me. Let's do it this way until there's a god reason
^^^
to do it differently.
I think maybe that you meant 'good', but I am not so sure. ;-) Trent -- Trent Mick trentm@activestate.com
participants (3)
-
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Mark Hammond -
Trent Mick