Neil Bird wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 08:39:04 +0000:
> Around about 08/02/11 01:58, Daniel Shahaf typed ...
>> I'm concerned; that doesn't sound like a good process to develop
>> a patch. Normally backporting a patch is a matter of finding
>> N applicable revisions and merging them... but it sounds that here
>> you're re-developing the feature from scratch.
>
> Which is why this route wasn't my first choice. The required changes
> look as if they're too far down to line to apply separately; they
> require previous, possibly unrelated, revisions.
>
> I'll take the time later to see if I can figure out exactly how many
> trunk revisions I'd need.
>
Thanks. However, to clarify, I'm not specifically interested in the
"give us N revisions" form; I'm just interested in seeing a coherent
patch at the end, and wanted to ensure you haven't forgotten that in
depth of coding.
>
>> If it won't compile on windows, for example, I'd be concerned that you
>> introduced run-time bugs on unix.
>
> I poorly phrased it; all I meant was, I'm likely going to be unable to
> verify that it builds on Windows. The code's actually not as ifdef'd as
> it first appears, and a quick walk-though makes me think it *should* be
> OK. I just won't be able to check myself.
No problem here, then.
>
Good luck / and thanks,
Daniel
Received on 2011-02-08 10:08:45 CET