Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Op 24-6-2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef: It helps if patches are in-line in the mail note. (That way, EOL differences are compensated for and those of us with an MS-DOS mentality don't have to save the attachment to disk to find a way to view it correctly.) - Dennis PS: I guess I should find a way to change my default *.txt viewer to one that is agnostic about EOL conventions, but the one I prefer takes too long to fire up. OK, but, being the tech illaterate that I am, that seems to be a contradiction of this page: http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors.html#svnbasics stating Some projects don't use an issue tracker. In that case, send the patch as an attachment to an e-mail with a subject prefixed with [PATCH]. Patches should be sent to the appropriate development mailing list. Just trying to get it clear. I don't mind to put it in-line nor to attach it. It makes hardly any difference to me. Or is it dependent on the text-editor I am using (Notepad++ in this case)? -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
On Jun 25, 2011 5:58 AM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef: It helps if patches are in-line in the mail note. (That way, EOL differences are compensated for and those of us with an MS-DOS mentality don't have to save the attachment to disk to find a way to view it correctly.) - Dennis PS: I guess I should find a way to change my default *.txt viewer to one that is agnostic about EOL conventions, but the one I prefer takes too long to fire up. OK, but, being the tech illaterate that I am, that seems to be a contradiction of this page: http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors.html#svnbasics stating Some projects don't use an issue tracker. In that case, send the patch as an attachment to an e-mail with a subject prefixed with [PATCH]. Patches should be sent to the appropriate development mailing list. Just trying to get it clear. I don't mind to put it in-line nor to attach it. It makes hardly any difference to me. Or is it dependent on the text-editor I am using (Notepad++ in this case)? Just to throw further fuel on the fire Inline patches (not attachments) are sometimes subject to line-wrap, which *totally* screws them up. What fun :-) Cheers, -g ps. thus, git was created as a fancy patch-manager :-)
RE: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
It's true, if an e-mail sender injects hard line wraps, it screws up the patch. (In the past, this has been a problem if you digitally sign the mail using the MIME signature technique. I haven't checked if that is still the case.) I have no idea why Notepad++ would change the eol convention on Windows. Maybe it just left the breaks in the way they came out of TortoiseSVN DIFF, if that was used to make the Patch. I know the regular Notepad, which is the default for opening a .txt attachment on my machine, pukes pretty badly on the attachment that was sent. (I know, I know, I will see how to change that application association to something more robust.) The key thing is that attachments don't receive inter-platform EOL adjustment -- the mail clients don't (or shouldn't) touch them. -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 04:37 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website On Jun 25, 2011 5:58 AM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef: It helps if patches are in-line in the mail note. (That way, EOL differences are compensated for and those of us with an MS-DOS mentality don't have to save the attachment to disk to find a way to view it correctly.) - Dennis PS: I guess I should find a way to change my default *.txt viewer to one that is agnostic about EOL conventions, but the one I prefer takes too long to fire up. OK, but, being the tech illaterate that I am, that seems to be a contradiction of this page: http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors.html#svnbasics stating Some projects don't use an issue tracker. In that case, send the patch as an attachment to an e-mail with a subject prefixed with [PATCH]. Patches should be sent to the appropriate development mailing list. Just trying to get it clear. I don't mind to put it in-line nor to attach it. It makes hardly any difference to me. Or is it dependent on the text-editor I am using (Notepad++ in this case)? Just to throw further fuel on the fire Inline patches (not attachments) are sometimes subject to line-wrap, which *totally* screws them up. What fun :-) Cheers, -g ps. thus, git was created as a fancy patch-manager :-)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
How? By locking the files that are being patched while doing the review? Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything? Locking only prevents me from committing by working copy. It doesn't prevent me from applying a patch to my working copy, right? -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
I thought about this. But it was a 5 second thing, so I just did it and said it then. OK; next time the other way round. ;-) Marcus Am 06/24/2011 08:26 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskampth.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Locking is not high on the list of collaborative activities at Apache. The proper workflow is to run svn up, apply the patch, then commit it. If the commit fails, run svn up and svn diff to see what's changed on the server in the interim (fwiw the CMS webgui does this automatically). If you have no conflicts to deal with and like the diff, then recommit. - Original Message From: Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 2:41:15 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website How? By locking the files that are being patched while doing the review? Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything? Locking only prevents me from committing by working copy. It doesn't prevent me from applying a patch to my working copy, right? -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
OK. I just looked up JFDI. ;-) Let me explain why I brought this up. In this particular case, yes, JDFI. No big deal. But if it were a more complicated patch, one that took a more substantial amount of time to review, build and test, say 30 minutes, then it would be really annoying to have 4 committers undertake that work independently, and have three of them find out that they had wasted their time. Does Subversion have a feature to deal with that? It seems to me that the thing that you need to put the mutex on is the patch, not the repository. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: How? By locking the files that are being patched while doing the review? Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything? Locking only prevents me from committing by working copy. It doesn't prevent me from applying a patch to my working copy, right? -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
You don't need a mutex. This is a social problem, and the ASF is more like Jakarta than it is Japan. People who want to avoid a thundering herd will pace themselves according to the usual timing of things, and allow others the opportunity to commit patches before checking the commit list and log history of the files in question to see if someone else beat them to it. - Original Message From: Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 2:47:23 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website OK. I just looked up JFDI. ;-) Let me explain why I brought this up. In this particular case, yes, JDFI. No big deal. But if it were a more complicated patch, one that took a more substantial amount of time to review, build and test, say 30 minutes, then it would be really annoying to have 4 committers undertake that work independently, and have three of them find out that they had wasted their time. Does Subversion have a feature to deal with that? It seems to me that the thing that you need to put the mutex on is the patch, not the repository. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: How? By locking the files that are being patched while doing the review? Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything? Locking only prevents me from committing by working copy. It doesn't prevent me from applying a patch to my working copy, right? -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
RE: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
It helps if patches are in-line in the mail note. (That way, EOL differences are compensated for and those of us with an MS-DOS mentality don't have to save the attachment to disk to find a way to view it correctly.) - Dennis PS: I guess I should find a way to change my default *.txt viewer to one that is agnostic about EOL conventions, but the one I prefer takes too long to fire up. -Original Message- From: Dick Groskamp [mailto:th.grosk...@quicknet.nl] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:56 To: OOo Dev Apache Subject: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website Trying to get the hang of it. Just fiddling around for the moment -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: [PATCH] Corrected two typos on website
Larger patches typically have some level of review, and during that conversation you will generally see somebody take interest in the patch. As Joe said, it is a social convention that generally works itself out without a person needing to claim a patch. And if four days go by, and nobody has dealt with the patch? Then jump on it :-) In the Apache Subversion community, we have a volunteer called the Patch Manager. That person watches the list for patches, and if action is not taken on it after a week or two, they ping the list to remind people of the patch. After another couple weeks, the PM will open an issue and attach the patch. This is very helpful when a lot of patches are flowing by on the list. My general opinion is that if you have a lot of [PATCH] emails to the list, then you probably need to step up the invitations for commit access. Cheers, -g On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 14:47, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: OK. I just looked up JFDI. ;-) Let me explain why I brought this up. In this particular case, yes, JDFI. No big deal. But if it were a more complicated patch, one that took a more substantial amount of time to review, build and test, say 30 minutes, then it would be really annoying to have 4 committers undertake that work independently, and have three of them find out that they had wasted their time. Does Subversion have a feature to deal with that? It seems to me that the thing that you need to put the mutex on is the patch, not the repository. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: How? By locking the files that are being patched while doing the review? Would that have really told the 2nd reviewer anything? Locking only prevents me from committing by working copy. It doesn't prevent me from applying a patch to my working copy, right? -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Better to let subversion resolve coordination problems than to put up obstructions to jfdi, IMO. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote: Good job, both. My little mystery was trying to figure out why SVN was not letting me apply the patch. Then I figured it out. The patch had already been applied. ;-) Perhaps a convention in the future would be that the committer who wants to review and merge a patch first claims the patch on the list, by responding to the [PATCH] note, saying I have this one or something equivalent. -Rob On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Dick Groskamp th.grosk...@quicknet.nl wrote: Op 24-6-2011 20:18, Marcus (OOo) schreef: Thanks for the fix. :-) As I don't know yet how to add a patch to SVN, I've corrected the text directly. I hope it's OK for you. Of course I've mentioned you in the commit message. Marcus No problem. Just stumbled over them when I was playing with SVN. (I'm also on the learning curve like yourself I presume ;-) ) -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
