On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:50:09PM -0800, Andy Ross wrote: > Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > Martin Dressler writes: > > > I'm now working on Ground view mode and I just go through code to > > > fully understand the problem. I find some small nearly cosmetic > > > bugs. What is the best way to rapair them. Should I make diff of > > > affected code or should I tar the whole file. Should I repair only > > > one bug in one patch. Or could I make all changes and tar them in > > > one patch. > > > > It's easiest for me if you send whole copies of the files that are > > fixed/changed. > > Clearly this is an issue of personal style, but let me rattle off a > few reasons why I think patch files are a better choice: > > + They're more tolerant of file change. Consider my patch for the > sorted property list. David just applied it, but only after other > modifications to the same file. Doing this with a whole file is a > merge chore, but the patch still applied cleanly. There was a > feature collision recently (I forget the details) where changes got > backed out accidentally. This is much harder to do when all the > changes are stored and transferred as patch files.
That may be true. > > + They're more human readable. Inevitably, you're going to be doing a > diff between revisions to see what's changed anyway. This just give > it to you up front. If you want to look at more surrounding code, > you certainly can, but everyone starts with the diff anyway. Hardly. A side by side diff program such as gtkdiff or xxdiff (no doubt emacs has such a feature as well) is human readable. You have obviously taken the time to learn how to read a patch and become comfortable with it, but I can't imagine they were ever *meant* to be human readable. > > + They're smaller, and much more appropriate for posting to the > mailing lists. This means that I can let everyone try the > virtual cockpit feature, instead of just the maintainers. There's nothing wrong with posting *small* patches to the list, but do keep in mind that some here are still on 56k and some of our European members pay for access by the minute. > > + They're not nearly so hard to use as they seem the first time you > try them. Alas, (or maybe Lo! is a better word) "patch" is a Larry > Wall program. This means that it carries a lot of the same "figure > out what the user wants, no matter how inscrutable the logic" > baggage that perl does. But just like perl, once you are over the > learning curve it's a truly great tool that Just Works. > > Basically, from your FlightGear tree: > % cvs diff > feature99.patch > And someone else can do: > % patch < feature99.patch > And everything works as advertised. > > Andy > > -- > Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems > Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com > "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." > - Sting (misquoted) > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
