On 2009/01/20 23:22, Linel Patrice <patnathan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok i'll do this after fixing the warnings. > You prefer not to have a empty function (solving the certain unused > variable), or have the warning? > There are some of the warning ,I can not fix cause it is a callback > function of pulse.
Those "unused parameter" warnings can be "fixed" by adding the G_GNUC_UNUSED attribute. This marks the variables as "unused but it's ok", so gcc knows. I'm trying to clarify the reason why I don't want to have your intermediate patches: it's our differences in point of view: Your point of view is: "I created the pulse mixer, then fixed something, then merged to new API, then.... everything's one step in my progress towards the final version". That's however not important for me (as the maintainer who decides what to merge). As long as you develop stuff and it's not merged, your (failed?) steps in-between don't matter. They will only break the code for people who use "git bisect". As long as we know that the intermediate steps don't work, we don't need them in the MPD git history. I'm not only interested in the end result, I also read all individual patches. A whole different topic is separating patches into logical steps: create separate patches for separate changes. As long as you only add the pulse mixer, and not change any other source file, you don't need to split, however. Max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Musicpd-dev-team mailing list Musicpd-dev-team@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/musicpd-dev-team
