On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Rhett Sutphin <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Ittay Dror wrote: > > Assaf Arkin wrote: >> >> Specs really really help. A patch could look simple and trivial, maybe >>> it's >>> a one line fix, but writing the spec and then accepting the patch is more >>> work than accepting a tested patch. >>> >>> If you can't figure out how to fix something, but can at least write a >>> spec >>> to prove it's broken, that's also enormously helpful. The fix may end up >>> to >>> be trivial to someone else, just by running the spec and looking at the >>> stack trace. >>> >>> So spec as much as possible. >>> >>> I find the current way of submitting patches / specs to be unproductive. >> It's hard for people to comment on a patch: you see an email about a patch, >> need to open the issue in the browser, download the patch, read, and then >> the only way to comment is writing an out-of-line comment in jira. and of >> course people follow jira notices far less than the "regular" mailing lists. >> Also, there are no clear coding conventions to follow. Finally, I don't >> remember seeing someone's patch being accepted. >> > > I don't have an opinion on the rest (except that it would be nice if JIRA > would let you read patches in the browser instead of downloading them) A little tip: if you use the .txt extension for your patches (something like foo-bar-patch.txt) it will work. I'd recommend it to everyone submitting patches, it's a small time saver when you have lots of them to review. Matthieu > , but I'm sure patches are accepted from time to time. E.g.: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-124 > > Rhett > > > >> >> Ittay >> >>> Assaf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ittay >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Tikal <http://www.tikalk.com> >> Tikal Project <http://tikal.sourceforge.net> >> >> >
