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
