I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are
assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's
no point in submitting them.
So if you don't specify, then it's under the LGPL and if you want it to
also be available to ReWind you need to explicitly
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Not sure where that documentation is, but it's much better to diff new
files than to add separate attachments. The basic rules are: no
attachments, no mime crap, no line wrapping, a single patch per
mail. Basically if I can't do cat raw_mail | patch -p0 it's in the
wrong
Mike Hearn a écrit:
I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are
assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's
no point in submitting them.
So if you don't specify, then it's under the LGPL and if you want it to
also be available to ReWind you need
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually attach the diff, but make sure that the mime type allows it
to be displayed. I received no complaints so far from Alexander, but
now I'm not sure why.
The eventual mail has Mime crap, but as it is not encoded Alexander
should be able to
Er... I didn't mean it to be submitted right now, only
getting some comments on it (thanks!). But below is the
patch nevertheless (the new listbox.c file is attached).
Reading the devel list it also became obvious that there is
wine-patches, where I should send the final patches, should
I?
Tony Lambregts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The patch is still in the wrong format. New files need to
be diff'ed against /dev/null.
Thanks for the clarification! Winehq says new files can be
included as separate attachments. Well, this is exactly one
kind of problems/comments I expected for
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Tony Lambregts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The patch is still in the wrong format. New files need to
be diff'ed against /dev/null.
Thanks for the clarification! Winehq says new files can be
included as separate attachments. Well, this is exactly one
kind of
Tony Lambregts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, It looks like I am incorrect. It seems I am so used to
seeing new files diff'ed that I assumed that was the prefered way.
Unless Alexandre says he prefers one way or the other I guess I will
leave the documentation the way it is.
Not sure
Tony Lambregts wrote:
Ok. then
Change Log: Clarify patch requirements.
Files changed: documentation/patches.sgml
Index: patches.sgml
===
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/patches.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.6
Duane Clark wrote:
Which demonstrates one of the complications with inlined plain text,
because generally extra effort is required to prevent undesired word wrap.
Perhaps what might reduce this problem is to explicitely document for
every common mailer, a method that will produce the desired
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Hello,
I put together a new test file for dlls/user/tests (find
attached). It tests undocumented behaviour (at least I
couldn't find a word), but one of my apps depend on it.
It's a first try, please have a look at it (I tried to
follow the Developers' Guide)
Tony Lambregts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patches should be in diff -u format. Please refer to the
following link about submitting patches.
http://www.winehq.org/docs/wine-devel/patches.shtml
Er... I didn't mean it to be submitted right now, only
getting some comments on it (thanks!). But
Hello,
I put together a new test file for dlls/user/tests (find
attached). It tests undocumented behaviour (at least I
couldn't find a word), but one of my apps depend on it.
It's a first try, please have a look at it (I tried to
follow the Developers' Guide) and tell me what I
13 matches
Mail list logo
