On Fri, 2005-04-01 09:54:17 +0200, moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message <20050401075417.14596.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > --- Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The best approach is to cleanly break out all your > > changes into > > semantical patches and submit them to the prople who > > care about the > > individual files. The MIPS-specific patches go to > > this list. > > I already tried this one, and it doens't seem to be > the best one: I sent a patch a couple of months ago > to the list, but I didn't get any answers...so I beg > for Ralf to look at it on IRC, but he seems to have > not time for it...So now I'm trying to find out a new > approach.... Don't expect that sending a patch once always leads to it's prompt acceptance. Pushing a patch *can* involve resending it multiple times, over a long period of time. However, if a patch is in acceptable state (that is, a half-way readable coding style, no superfluous debugging output, ...), Ralf usually takes it quite fast. > Futhermore, this solution can take several months > before every patches have been submitted and accepted. > During this while I'll need to be synchronised with > CVS tree. That isn't all that easy, especially with CVS and especially if you want to keep patches in nicely separated changesets. With CVS, this unfortunately involves some manual work, or clever scripting. But SCM systems are a totally different topic. "quilt" may work for you, though. (And yes, we all search for the solution[tm] to SCM. RFC 1925 comes to mind, modified to "Easy to use, technically working and politically correct: Pick any two (you can't have all three)." ) MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier BÃrger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
