Josh Soref:
> If you treat it as 140 or so individual patches, you could probably pull in
> a significant portion of you were so inclined. But you don't need to do
> that.
I don't enjoy typing 140 commands, and having to do it twice to
decrease the likelihood that I make a mistake.
> How much of a hurry are you in?
>
> None. I just need to know that I've reached the right place and have a hint
> of a process for moving forward. (Some projects I've submitted to have
> taken on the order of a year to accept changes, I can be patient.)
>
> If you can point me to a version control system or tarball once you've
> integrated the spelling fixes, I should be able to rebase and submit.
Any Postfix 3.3 tarball, after I apply the other guy's typofixes. And
that will happen some time after the 3.2 release is done.
> It would be helpful if you could indicate what format you'd prefer the
> submission in. My preference is a series of single purpose changesets,
> because they're easy to review, easy to skip, and easy to correct when
> conflicts arise.
>
> Your project had very few non comment changes, but there were a few.
> Some projects like to split it API (in this case that's mostly macro
> definitions) from code (mostly strings in this case) from comments and
> documentation. Some just accept things as complete lumps.
Separate code and non-code patches would be preferred. With the
non-code changes I can verify that the compiler produces the same
output (on multiple platforms, if changes are inside #ifdefs).
With things that change code, I may have to write new tests if the
affected code was only tested manually and never changed thereafter.
Wietse
