On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:35:47PM +0200, Colin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:04:12PM -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote: > > On 10/19/06, Colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Hi Again, > > > > > >I have finally found a few minutes to write down all issues that I > > >found in apr_atomic.c ... I would now like to know whether, and > > >for which of the points, there is interest in further discussion > > >and/or finally a patch. > > > > If you actually have patches to correct whatever problems there are, > > then great, send them in. You're considerably more likely to get a > > response from an actual patch (preferably that fixes one specific > > problem) than by just describing the problem. > > Ok ... below is the output of 'svn diff', and attached is a .tgz with > the diff and the two changed files. Nothing else was touched yet, as > it is probably better to wait which changes actually get accepted. > Please feel free to ask about any details of the changes... A brief > list of changed points, and other relevant notes, is at the head of > the .c file.
The emphasis should have been on patch*es* in the plural there! When you're making multiple sets of changes, it's better to send one patch per functional change (or set of closely-related changes, possibly), so they can be reviewed separately. Without splitting out whitespace changes, non-functional changes, code re-ordering etc this is very hard to review. Also, the function prototype changes need to be addressed separately because they can't be used in any 1.x release. Would it be possible for you to split this out and resend it? e.g. one patch for Solaris-specific fixes, one for the Darwin implemention, etc. Also - the changes made should be described in the mail with which each patch is sent, not in the source file itself. Regards, joe
