On 9/14/05, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > the patch looks fine and applies to current CVS in a dry-run.
That'd be because I just created it from current CVS. :) > Do we want it in 3.0.2? Doesn't matter to me - if it doesn't break anything (e.g. applying other patches), I don't see why it could hurt. It's not even really a appearance thing - it's generally hidden to the user. I personally think that simply because it's there, I don't see a reason to hold it back. Others may disagree, and if they provide good reasoning, I won't push the patch forward. > Just one remark. I personally like patches created with "diff -u". I'll keep this in mind, for the future. > This format makes it easier to see the actual changes. At least in my > opinion. Maybe we should change the documentation. Sounds like a good idea -- I can't figure out what happened in the patch either from reading it plain, so I think I'll make future patches with -u. And yes, I believe that if there's time, nothing will be hurt badly by changing the documentation, unless some other project head likes differently. -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
