Re: patch filenames

["Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv84%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 07/01/2008, at 23:21, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:

> > It is not as easy as you make it sound.  Many, many times, putting
> > all the patches together and removing pkgsrc-specific bits will
> > result in a patch that will NOT be accepted by upstream.  The
> > reason: the patch will contain fixes and/or improvements for many
> > different, unrelated stuff.
>
> Amount af efforts for sorting patches into logical blocks is well
> known.  The question is WHEN these efforts are necessary. Every time
> you change even one line in source code to keep your patches/ in a
> consistent state?  Or once before sending them to upstream maintainer.
> I'd prefer to do this once.

Mmm, sorry?  I don't understand you here.

> > Upstream wants patches
> As an upstream maintainer I'd tell you that I personally DO NOT NEED
> user's patches at all and in truth I don't like them. Most often all
> these patches are not good enough to be applied for a number of
> reasons. So, I personally prefer bug report when user describe his
> problem and nothing else. It is enough and I always tell
> them "thank you".

Maybe you don't.  But I've had lots of patches integrated verbatim  
into mainstream sources.  Providing good patches is a good, if not  
the best, way to gain confidence from the maintainers, and this can  
later make you get commit access.  You cannot gain such confidence  
from explanations alone: you can describe things very well at a  
theoretical level but be a poor programmer.

--
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84%gmail.com@localhost>