[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Patches with independent changes

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Patches with independent changes
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:01:21 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
There was no second change.

Sure there was. It would have been easy to apply a simpler patch that contained just the single change needed to fix the porting bug, namely to call chmod rather than fchmod (attached). Instead, you applied a more-complicated patch that contained multiple independent changes.

Moving on to trunk bzr 116064:

These independent changes weren't needed to fix the bug.

Yes, they were needed

Obviously they were not needed to fix the bug, as the bug would have been fixed without them. They were "needed" only in the sense that it's nicer for maintainers and users if Emacs is simpler and smaller. It was reasonable to apply those changes while you were in the neighborhood, but they could have been applied as separate and independent patches (not that I recommend this -- I think the patch was fine as-is).

Your changes were different in kind

I don't see why. We all install patches containing multiple independent changes, only some of which are needed to fix a bug. And that's OK. The important thing is that changes in a patch should all be related, so that it makes sense to install them together. It's not always essential or even advisable to separate changes into different patches merely because the changes are independent.

Attachment: update.diff
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

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