On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:15:18 -0000, Søren Sandmann <sandm...@cs.au.dk> wrote:
Yeah, that's fair enough. The following patch adds some information to the README file - I'd appreciate feedback on whether this type of documentation would have been helpful to you. If so, I'll also add something on pixman.org
Hi Søren, Yes, that does look useful - I can spot a few things that I eventually deduced by googling, and one or two things that I still hadn't picked up on. Here are a few comments: * You might want to use an overview URL for that Bugzilla database, like https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?product=pixman&component=pixman&resolution=--- * You might want to make it more clear that git send-email must be used to submit patches, in preference to most email clients that will mangle them, or the use of attachments. I recognise that you might consider this outside the scope of your document, but I found a number of things non-obvious about git-email: for example, it's distributed in a different package than git, and despite what git-scm.com says, you don't need access to an IMAP server to be able to use it, but you can use a locally-installed SMTP server such as msmtp instead (though setting that up wasn't that easy either, for reasons I won't go into here). * The --cover-letter option to git format-patch you mentioned: I assume this is for the [PATCH 0/n] emails. It's probably worth mentioning that most of the detail of benchmarking etc still needs to go into the individual patches. Presumably this is because the cover letter doesn't get imported by the "git am" command? * Siarhei mentioned that the source tree is expected to continue to build between each part of a multi-part patch series. Implicit in this is the fact that each part can contain patches for more than one source file (which wasn't immediately obvious to me). Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
