[crossfire] Crossedit patches

[Kevin Rudat]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 09:53:43PM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote:

>
     
       On the one hand, crossedit is basically obsoleted, so I don't want to 
     
     >
     
       spend a bunch of time and resources maintaining it.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       On the other, if people want to do so, who am I to say don't do it.
     
     
I was thinking/hoping you'd say something like that. =)

>
     
       That said, when doing such patches, it makes it much easier to deal with 
     
     >
     
       if each patch is limited to what is if fixing/adding, and not redoing other 
     
     >
     
      code, or a collection of fixes.  Small focused patches are much easier to 
     
     >
     
      look over and be convinced that they do the right thing.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       And while not an issue with crossedit, the general case is that if the 
     
     >
     
       patches can be isolated, more likely to apply correctly or figure out what 
     
     >
     
      is going on. If the patch does several things and very large, odds are 
     
     >
     
       more likely that it may get a conflict, and it can also be harder to tell 
     
     >
     
      what the correction to that conflict is (eg, not clear what bug/feature is 
     
     >
     
      being addressed).
     
     
*nods*

I didn't mean to imply that I'd give a bunch of changes in one monolithic
patch. :(

Which patches is it worth making, for inclusion in CVS?

At the moment all the changes are in one source tree. It's a bit more work
to extract them into separate diffs.

I wanted to know if there's any objections to the changes, so I don't spend
time composing patches that won't be used.

I mean, objections to each idea, rather than issues discovered when
reviewing a patch itself.

---

Thanks for your time.
Kevin Rudat