bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Official sources vs. RCVS


From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: Official sources vs. RCVS
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:04:27 -0500

"Cameron, Steve" wrote:

> Karl Fogel wrote:
>
> > But the majority of patches received don't fit these qualifications.
> > This isn't meant to be some sort of off-putting, elitist statement,
> > and I hope it doesn't sound that way -- the same thing can be said of
> > 90% of the patches sent to 90% of the free software projects in the
> > world.
>         [smc]  Part of the (perceived) problem might be that for those 90%
>         of the patches that fail to live up to the standards, there is
> generally
>         not much, if any, constructive criticism, or that's been my
> experience

Any immediate thoughts on Steve's .trunk/.origin patch if I do the initial
review & testing?  I will post my thoughts after review and testing and
before applying, regardless.

Derek

P.S. He posted the wrong link to his patch this time around.  It's actually
http://www.geocities.com/dotslashstar/branch_patch.html.

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
"If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides."

                        -- Old Yiddish Proverb






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]