>From http://poi.apache.org/guidelines.html#SubmittingPatches """ You may create your patch file using either of the following approaches (the committers recommend the first): Approach 1 - use Ant Approach 2 - the manual way Approach 3 - the git way """
What is the current preference among the POI committers and community? I prefer having a plain text diff attached to the bugs since I'm often on mobile and can't view the tarballs as easily. This problem would go away if ant produced a plain text diff plus a tarball of any binary files or bugzilla showed the tarball contents. I personally prefer to work with patch files, as it's easier for me to check changes on my phone. (no tar xvzf business). Pros to `ant patch`: * Less likely to forget to include new files, especially binary files (XLS and XLSX test cases) that don't show up in svn diff output * Generates a single tarball to upload to bugzilla Cons to `ant -f patch.xml`: * Patch includes temporary files that were created but not deleted by unit tests * Zipped contribution is difficult to read and browse on mobile, requires an extra step to read it on non-mobile. In all likelihood, the people who are merely curious but not dependent on the changes or a committer will read the patch. Fewer eyeballs and non-mobile-friendliness means less and slower feedback. * ant -f patch.xml can create a patch tarball with one command. Can ant apply a patch tarball to a working directory with one command? Pros to `svn diff`: * Can cherrypick the files you want to include in diff * Mobile friendly (the merely curious people can read the patch on their phone when waiting for the bus) * Better metadata: encourages also defining svn properties on added files. `svn copy` shows up in the diff, improving the version control history graph. Cons to `svn diff`: * More likely to forget to include binary files * More likely to have two attachments: the diff and either single test case file or a zip of multiple test case files. Could also include the diff in the zip, but why not use ant at that point? If we want to stick with ant as the recommended approach, could we do something to address: 1) for reviewers: make it easier to read the diff on mobile in a web browser 2) mostly for the committer: easier to apply an ant-generated patch tarball to a working copy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
