On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > Or some close variant. > > > > I have got more script variants evolving in my software collection. > > > > There are further approaches available from various contributors, > > aren't there? > > What she is asking for is a concise and precise decription of what you > have done. If you have some other variants, eg controlling where the > sizeof argument is (left or right of *), you don't necessarily have to > include it in the patch, if such a rule was not used for the specific > patch anyway. *nod* If I see a patch that says "I've run the following cocchinelle patch to perform $TRANSFORMATION, and here's the result", I can be reasonably sure that the result will be what is intended to be changed in the first place (and I can assess whether the change makes sense at all.) If I see only the resulting patch, I won't know whether you have performed the changes manually (and possibly introduced bugs, as happens to all of us.) Moreover, a good semantic patch is useful to others as well and might even be reused in other contexts that have similar requirements. You really lose value if you don't publish them.
