Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: CVS and patch usage (Re: Othelo v1.4 + Documentation)
Re: CVS and patch usage (Re: Othelo v1.4 + Documentation)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:47:02 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, BlueChip wrote:
> There are no docs to say HOW to make a patch - I am a programmer, not a bash
I wrote this patch guide for exactly this purpose:
Please tell us what you miss or don't understand in it, and I'll make an
effort to improve it to be clearer on those points.
> Anyway, eventually, after being mislead a couple of time, I finally worked
> it out and v1.1 of othelo was a .pat file.
> The next thing I know, is that I go to post a comment about my patch - and
> it is gone.
> Pleasingly, it magically appeared as a plugin :)
I bet Björn got it and committed it and then closed the entry in the tracker.
Anyway, it got there.
> ...Minus it's documentation
When you informed him about that fact, he added it to CVS. I guess it was a
plain mistake on his part. Even Björn makes mistakes! ;-)
> So I endeavoured on a course to get the docs included.
The docs were already in when you still complained. The reasons why you didn't
see it was:
1. anonymous CVS didn't include it because it hardly works and is delayed like
crap all the time
2. we had missed to edit the FILES file to make the docs get included in the
daily source tarball
Item 2 is now fixed, and over time it'll also appear in the anonymous CVS.
> Should my last lot of work (eg. docs) be included (or excluded FOR A REASON)
> then I will continue to work with whatever system made it happen.
It was fixed using the original "system": your first patch tracker submission.
> If my persistence is futile, then I will just post the patches somewhere
> else and email the URL to this list for those who may be interested - I am
> sure I can come up with something sensible to put in the subject so that
> interested parties can set up a filter :)
This is not a fight between you and someone else. I think we all want to
improve Rockbox so we're all on the same side.
The suggested ways to contribute patches and code are imposed in order to ease
the management of the project and thus allow us to make Rockbox better with
If you have better ideas on how to deal with the vast amounts of code and
patches than the patch tracker, then please spell it out and we'll discuss
them. Just mailing them to the list (with or without repeats) has proved to be
a method with many glitches.
> But having tried and failed with the official system ...what's a girl to do?
I can't see how you failed on this. The plugin was committed and the docs were
added. There are numerous of other patches that haven't even gone that far
> > Having all the patches and code contributions in the patch tracker allows
> > us to manage them much easier: they're not forgotten, we can prioritize
> > them, we can assign them to a certain developer, etc.
> Perhaps I fail to understand this "assigned" thing.
That's just a way for us who deal with the patch tracker entries to hand
certain entries over to specific people. Like how language entries are
automaticly handed over to quelsaruk. Then we know that a specific person
feels some responsibility for that particular patch.
> Anyway, there is another alternative, I learn to use CVS and request commit
> privs ...IN THAT ORDER ;)
Well, using CVS is dead easy. I think there are lots of people involved in
this project who learned how to use cvs for the first time when hacking on
The CVS docs page describes the few basic operations you really need to know:
And sure, I'd love to offer you CVS access to let you fiddle with "your"
plugin on your own! ;-) (That offer of course goes for all people who author
plugins now present in CVS.)
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2003-07-31