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 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 format. I'd guess that at most 20% of the submitted patches follow the rules :-( > >Also, I found no mention of license info on the web page. > > > Well this makes Alexandre's job easier. It also makes it clear who > owns copyright and what is permitted/required. 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. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
