[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 12:58:09 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
otherwise the build would have failed when compiler warnings are
> turned on and used as errors.

That would have been odd, as other static variables in Emacs are declared and set but never used (e.g., category_table_version) and evidently these builds are not failing. It's certainly OK to clean up the glitches, but such cleanups are independent changes.

Then any number of patches can be installed in a single commit,
because they are all "related" -- after all, they are all about Emacs.

No, that's too broad. Patches should contain changes that are more closely-related than that.

> you cannot chmod a file that is open ... the chmod call will fail.

Where is this documented? Does the problem occur if any process has the file open, or only if the current process has it open? What is errno after the failure? This problem does not occur on POSIXish platforms; if it happens under Microsoft Windows the incompatibility should be documented (in Gnulib, if the problem is generic to GNU applications).

> the fact that the problem could have been solved in more than
> one way doesn't mean there are multiple changes involved.

True, but if the problem could have been solved in a simpler way that involved fewer changes, then multiple changes were most likely present.

Come to think of it, why is that chmod needed at all in WINDOWSNT? The file is already readable and writeable, so as I understand it chmod 644 is therefore a no-op on that platform. If so, the attached patch would have been simpler yet, no?

Attachment: update1.diff
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

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