According to Joe R. Jah:
> > > I guess we'd also want a mechanism for overriding or replacing patches
> > > with corrected versions. I've submitted patches from time to time, only
> > > to have someone point out a correction. I've also found some posted
> > > patches that were in need of corrections (e.g. a patch that tested a
> > > boolean parameter as a string, comparing it against "0", rather than
> > > using config.Boolean()). When a corrected patch is submitted, the
> > > defective one should be taken off - how will this be specified?
> >
> > I believe in history and archives; I think it is a good idea not to
> > destroy any document because they may turn out to be helpful to someone
> > in some way. That's why I use a numbering scheme to signify chronology
> > patches; i.e.
> >
> > thisPatch.cc.0
> > thisPatch.cc.1
> > ...
> > thatPatch.cc.0
> > thatPatch.cc.1
> > ..
> >
> > There must be a better way of doing that; I am open to suggestions.
>
> I created an 0ld directory under 3.1.3 patch directory, and moved the two
> old/redundant patches in there. When you submit a corrected patch I will
> move the defective one to the 0ld directory.
I think that's a great idea. The problem with the cronology idea,
combined with patches by name of source file they patch, is that it's
not clear what patches do what, and which are relevant/important.
For example, before 3.1.3, I posted several patches to HTML.cc, for a
number of different bug fixes and new features, and reposted a few of them
to correct problems in earlier patches. A listing of HTML.cc.0 through
HTML.cc.8 would not tell you what the patches do, and which are obsolete.
(OK, there weren't quite that many patches to it, but you get the point.)
I think that patch names that identify what bug they fixed, or what
feature they added, rather than what files they hit, are more useful.
For my patches, I always called them somethingbug.patch for bug fixes,
and something.patch for feature additions/enhancements. As for obsolete
patches, moving them to a subdirectory, as you're now doing, removes
any doubt as to whether they should still be used.
BTW, I guess I didn't read the README file for your patch site closely
enough last time. It does indeed provide the info I was looking for.
Thanks for your efforts, Joe. This site is a big help.
--
Gilles R. Detillieux E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Spinal Cord Research Centre WWW: http://www.scrc.umanitoba.ca/~grdetil
Dept. Physiology, U. of Manitoba Phone: (204)789-3766
Winnipeg, MB R3E 3J7 (Canada) Fax: (204)789-3930
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
