On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Louis Lenders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Juan Lang <juan.lang <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056911.html >> >> Ah. That's not enough to judge where your patches are going. > I already explained, see http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=14342 and > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056659.html. That's > what > i was intended to go to. > > A >> series of patches, adding a stub program, then adding a little more to >> it, and so on, would help judge the final product, while considering >> each piece independently. > > Here;s the whole patch that i sent a while ago, but i was advised after that > to > first sent a simple stub because the patch was too large: > > http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=14343 > > > It has the risk of getting rejected partway >> or wholesale, but has a higher likelihood of getting comments. It >> also removes a lot of the roundtrip time with patches. >> >> Sorry if the guidance isn't very clear. Don't be afraid to ask AJ on >> irc for more feedback too. >> --Juan >> >> > Anyway. thanks for your explanation >
You might also consider generating your patches using `git format-patch --keep-subject origin` as per http://www.winehq.org/site/sending_patches and sending your mail in plain text, not html.