> The idea of the two patch rule is for you to demonstrate that you can > successfully contribute. I do not argue. I really want to be helpful.
I made another patch. He corrects the error described in the ticket # 847.
Plus, I have tried to remove the recursion from the function enableEdition ().
Regards, Matthew V.
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:10:40 -0700
> From: d...@hohndel.org
> To: neolit...@gmail.com
> CC: matteoficht...@hotmail.com; subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
> Subject: Re: Patch for #848
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
> > On 17 March 2015 at 14:11, Matthew Vepritskiy
> > <matteoficht...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Okay. I see.
> > > At least I was right about the handles.:-(
> > >
> > > This patch is not counted? I have to make another one?
> > >
> >
> > yes, please do another one. your patches have to be applied for them to
> > count.
>
> Let me phrase this differently.
>
> If you had sent a solid patch that for some strange reason I ended up not
> taking, I would certainly have counted it. But commenting out a function
> isn't exactly a strong submission, wouldn't you agree?
>
> The idea of the two patch rule is for you to demonstrate that you can
> successfully contribute.
>
>
> /D
fix_for_ticket_#847
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
