[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patch pings
Re: patch pings
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:34:20 +0100
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:47:27PM CET:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> RW> Several patches of mine have not been addressed nor incorporated into
> RW> Automake nor rejected for a while.
> Sorry about that, and thanks for the list. I'll try to look at
> it on Saturday.
> Recently I've been postponing some bug fixes
> just because they were submitted without test cases, and I don't
> want to include bug fixes without test cases, and I thought it
> would be faster (and diplomatically easier to) write one than to
> demand one (obviously I was wrong about this, maybe that would
> have been truer if I had more time).
Well, I can see this (and I've done this myself before). But when time
passes, giving no answer at all can be more misleading, at least to
irregular list readers, than a short "this is ok but needs doc+test;
I'll write one unless beaten to" or similar appropriate note.
I was pretty sure that at least some of those patches were deemed to go
in at some time; after all, that was one reason for me to do the tests
rather than asking right away. :-)
> Ralf, in the meantime could you fill in the following form to
> get write access to Automake's CVS repository ?
> I think it would help me all lot if I just had to agree with your
> patches without having to handle to the commit, merge, etc. If that's
> OK with you, of course.
No problem. Please indicate though which branches some patch should be
applied to (I write for HEAD only). You regenerate files with CVS
Autoconf and with the Automake version that is being checked in, right?