On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:37:48PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:32:27PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, with the alignment hack now in (see resources.c) and lots of various
> > > and sundry portability fixes, it looks like we're on our way to turning
> > > the tinderbox a lovely shade of green.
> >
> > AARGH! It appears I spoke too soon. I don't have easy access to check,
> > but it looks like my alignment patch (resources.c, header.h) is gone
> > so Tru64 and Solaris64 are having alignment problems again. Also, the
> > C++-style comment in multiarray.pmc is crashing the Solaris tinderbox.
> > (I sent in a patch for that #17034 which is listed as applied, but
> > I don't think it actually is.)
>
> I think the Secret Parrot Society has decided that a certain Mr. Andy
> Dougherty should not apply his own patches. That's two different
> people now who have helpfully applied your patches in reverse after
> you already committed them. Maybe you should start replying "Thanks,
> applied" to yourself in self-defense!
It's also now three different patches that have got applied, and then applied
in reverse by someone else.
I can't see how this can happen without one of the two committers trying
to apply the patch to their local source, seeing a warning from patch
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
and saying y.
So, if committers STOP at this point and check the CVS log for that file,
then they will either find
1: a log message saying that that patch has already been applied.
(log messages ought to be helpful enough to reveal this. if log messages
aren't, bad, but cvs diff with -r is your friend)
2: that it doesn't seem to be applied, in which case CHECK WITH THE AUTHOR
("Your patch appears to be reversed, is that correct?")
Note, I'm quite deliberately not including an option that says "so you think
you know what's up; go ahead in reverse"
I think that sending a thanks applied in reply to the patch and closing the
bug ticket (aargh, which I can't do, and I've forgotten the instructions how
to join that club) probably also help.
Actually, I think I might relax my above suggestions:
3: If the patch supplies more regression tests when applied in reverse, and
makes no note about removing regression tests, it is reasonable to assume
that it's been supplied in reverse.
Nicholas Clark
--
Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
