On Monday 14 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:35:17PM CET: > > On Friday 11 February 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > There are a couple of things that I think could be better. One sentence > > > as a paragraph on its own isn't too pretty. The PYTHON override doesn't > > > seem to be the most important thing to me, so I'd put it last not first. > > > This would be in line with how autoconf.texi documents many macros: > > > cache and override variables are listed late. Also, I'd document that > > > the PYTHON variable is set by the macro. Ahh, that is already done, > > > further down in the text. I think the mention of override could be > > > placed there as well. > > > > > > So, how about this instead? Feel free to squash in and push if you > > > agree. > > > > > Hmmm... is the diff you posted incomplete, or am I missing something? > > I'll refrain from pushing the patch until this issue is clarified. > > I think the diff was complete in the sense that all my intended changes > were shown, > Oh. I thought it was incomplete in the sense that it didn't address some of the issues you had brought up (``The PYTHON override doesn't seem to be the most important thing to me, so I'd put it last not first'', ``One sentence as a paragraph on its own isn't too pretty'', etc,). I think we are experiencing a communication problem here; i.e., I can't understand whether I'm supposed to address those issues myself, or whether you think that they are secondary, your squash-in diff is enough, and I should push after having just applied it. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
> but I just really botched up and sent a diff against a file > that had further unrelated changes. > > > Also, an unrelated issue: I couldn't find a way to apply the diff you > > posted automatically (with either 'git' or 'patch'), and I had to apply > > it manually (yuck!). I assume that I'm clearly missing something here. > > So, to spare myself similar situations in the future, I'd like to ask: > > how could I have applied the patch below automatically? > > Probably not at all. Sorry about that. I'll try to be better next > time. (I'm mildly confused by your "an unrelated issue"; are they two > separate issues?) > See above. > If you are OK with the intended changes of the diff, then IMVHO you can > go ahead. > At cost of being annoying, I'd rather wait for the clarification I've asked above (but sorry for all this fuss about such a simple patch). Thanks, and sorry for the noise, Stefano
