Am 2011-01-11 17:03, schrieb Juan Lang:
> Tests must pass with every commit. In general, I prefer to see tests
> first, with failing tests marked todo_wine. Then the second patch,
> with implementation, removes the todo_wines. In this case adding
> todo_wine might be more trouble than it's worth
> First the normal then the test, or reverse?
Tests must pass with every commit. In general, I prefer to see tests
first, with failing tests marked todo_wine. Then the second patch,
with implementation, removes the todo_wines. In this case adding
todo_wine might be more trouble than it's worth,
Am 2011-01-11 16:58, schrieb Juan Lang:
> Ah, right. Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly. In that case, you need
> to number the patches as a series to show the dependency between them.
> --Juan
First the normal then the test, or reverse?
--Christian
> I don't know, what you've doing, but for me it show errors. (on
> unpatched crypt32/str.c (and patched crypt32/tests/str.c ;) ))
Ah, right. Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly. In that case, you need
to number the patches as a series to show the dependency between them.
--Juan
Am 2011-01-11 16:18, schrieb Juan Lang:
> Please don't introduce whitespace-only changes, it's harder to see
> what your patch is doing.
Sorry, that wasn't intended.
> Since these changes pass on unpatched wine, they don't demonstrate the
> necessity for your patch. We need tests that show what th
Hi Christian,
-static BYTE bin1[] = { 0x55, 0x53 };
-static BYTE bin2[] = { 0x4d, 0x69, 0x6e, 0x6e, 0x65, 0x73, 0x6f, 0x74,
+static BYTE bin1[] = { 0x55, 0x53 };
+static BYTE bin2[] = { 0x4d, 0x69, 0x6e, 0x6e, 0x65, 0x73, 0x6f, 0x74,
0x61 };
Please don't introduce whitespace-only changes, it'
