On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Bryan Ischo <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK, I can modify my patch according to this feedback. > > What is the best way to do this? Should I make a new patch assuming that my > patch 1 was accepted and applied? Or should I make a replacement patch 1 > and send that out on the assumption that my other patch will not be applied? >
When we give feedbacks on patches on the ML, we always expect you to resubmit fixed patches. And not fix on patches. For example, patch 5/5 is a fix of patch 2/5 so that's not perfect. Otherwise about your patchset, I am still not convinced that this is the smallest and best implementation possible. I would say the patches themselves are readable and well written, with good comments, etc. But I would still like to give more thinking to it and to explore other alternative ways. Last thing, Nagy seems to have given these patches a closer look, and he did a lot of good work on that deps.c file in my opinion, so I would like to know his overall feeling about this patchset now 8) _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
