On December 19, 2002 01:56 am, Tony Lambregts wrote: > Not a bad idea. how's this then. Better. Did you look at this: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002/09/0127.html The rules detailed in there are still valid: -- unified diff only (required) -- have a decent subject (recommended) -- a long description (optional, if the change warrants it) -- a meaningful ChangeLog entry (required) -- new files, if any, included in patch, diffed against /dev/null (required) -- patch inlined at the end of the message (recommended) -- one changeset per message What about including them in point-form for clarity, with some rationale (as you did) for things like patch inlining, etc. Idea being that one shouldn't have read the entire story if he/she only wants to see the rules. The story is good for first timers that want to understand why we have these rules/recommendations, so we can easily point them to them instead of having to answer it in long email every time... :) -- Dimi.
