manual patch tracking system for ntdll

[Alexandre Julliard]

thomas.mertes at gmx.at writes:

> - Ntdll atom stuff:
>   http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0064.html
> 
> - Ntdll atom tests.
>   http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0065.html
>   The tests where verified by Dmitry Timoshkov in this mail:
>   http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/04/0192.html
> 
> IMHO, if a patch is correct (can be verified by tests) it should be applied,
> even if no application needs this functions (at the moment).

There is a very big difference between "correct" and "verified by
tests". The atom patch may pass the tests but it's clearly not
implemented the right way.

> - Resend: Implement some ACE functions
>   http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/04/0129.html

This patch does not apply and I have asked Robert to resubmit an
updated one.

If you really want to do manual patch tracking, the right way is *not*
to post URLs to wine-devel. What you can do if people don't resubmit
their patches in a reasonable time frame is to do it for them,
regenerating the patch against latest CVS, and of course making sure
to preserve all the information from the original mail.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com