On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:40:59 -0700 Tim Bird <tbird...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Gaurang Shastri
> <gmshas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Please find attached the initial implementation of "w" command.
> >
> > Output after compiling my code with toybox :
> > {{{
> > [root@stark toybox-0.3.0]# ./toybox w
> > USER TTY LOGIN@ FROM
> > root tty2 Wed Jul 11 18:29:24 2012 ( )
> > rpmuser pts/1 Wed Jul 11 21:33:15 2012 (43.88.80.109)
> > rpmuser pts/2 Wed Jul 11 19:23:09 2012 (:0.0)
> > rpmuser pts/3 Tue Jul 17 20:33:41 2012 (43.88.80.208)
> > }}}
> >
>
> Here is some feedback:
>
> It is better to provide the patch inline, in the message body, rather
> than as an attachment. This allows people to easily respond to
> individual parts of the patch by commenting directly in a response
> e-mail. Comments can be placed in-line with the submitted code.
I thought it was generally agreed that attached patches are better
than inlined ones. Inline patches can get mangled to the point where
the patch program fails to actually use them. Attached patches are a
separate item that wont get mangled. Look back in this list you will
see inline patches that had this problem. Having the patch actually
work is more important than the ability to comment on them in place.
In my experience with mailing lists where the patch is sent to the list
by the source code management tool, people usually just quote the
entire patch as one big blob when commenting on it. Even if the patch
is megabytes long, and their response is two or three words.
--
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
