Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 15 January 2001 at 15:55:50 -0500
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > > I'm not going to do it unless a majority of the authors of patches are
> > > willing to repackage them as standalone programs. So if there's a
> > > firestorm of protest from those authors, I won't do it.
> >
> > I think this is a very bad idea. My primary reason is that it's
> > easier to apply a patch against updated main code than it is to
> > integrate the changes from that updated main code into a standalone
> > program.
>
> If Dan was putting out daily versions of qmail, sure. But we've had
> qmail-1.03 for several years now.
>
> > Also, some things are much better implemented as a change to
> > the existing programs, rather than as an additional layer of
> > programs.
>
> Try applying two patches to the same program.
Some days it works better than other days (well, actually it's not the
*day* that makes it different). I've worked professionally in
software development for 30 years; sometimes you just have to slog
through things like that.
If I were dealing with the problem based on a separate derived
program, and a new release of the original, I'd end up approaching it
by using diff to essentially make patches of the differences.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
