On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Stefan Dösinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 15 August 2011 12:16:55 Michael Mc Donnell wrote: >> Stefan thought a previous version of this looked ok, and I haven't had >> any negative feedback on this version either. > The 104 kb / 3000 line patch is rather big, you could probably split it up in > test+patch like you did with the other patches to make it obvious that the > bulk of this code is the tests. That'll not only help Alexandre, but also > people who try to debug potential regressions caused by this patch(*) > > To avoid lots of todo_wine's just send the implementation first and then the > tests. That's not how test driven development works, but most people send > patches in this order because it's easier. > > (*) Ok, a patch adding a new function is unlikely to cause a regression, but > still.
Ok, I've splitted in two and sent them to wine-patches. Thanks for suggesting to send them in reverse order. That was a nice trick to avoid all those todo_wine :-)
