On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:11:19 (EDT), Fabian Greffrath wrote:

> Am 06.07.2010 20:29, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> this patch looks rather intrusive.
>> is it really worth the efford? do you plan upstreaming it?
>
> Well, in my eyes this small patch is not really an efford. I just wanted
> to avoid code duplication by static linking of 4 executables while we
> have a nice shared lib at hand. I haven't worried about upstreaming it
> yet, but I expect them to decide for dynamic linking in the long term,
> anyway...
>
>> in any case, the patch lacks documentation.
>
> Yes, formally you are right, although I personally consider patch
> documentation overrated in cases like this. I mean, by reading the patch
> file name and having a look at what is changed in these eight lines, you
> already know what it does. Furthermore the author will be credited via
> debian/changelog. ;)

I consider the questions about the upstream status and acceptance one of
the, if not the most important part of the patch documentation. It would
have saved this mail thread if it was available in the first place.

> But anyway, you are right. If we decide to keep the patch, I will of
> course add documentation to it.

I'd be interested in Howard's opinion on this. He is really reactive and
slomo's last patch was integrated in a couple of minutes when I've
passed him the link to our patch.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Reply via email to