New conformance test for user32.dll

[Alexandre Julliard]

Tony Lambregts <tony_lambregts at telusplanet.net> writes:

> I'm sorry, It looks like I am incorrect. It seems I am so used to
> seeing new files diff'ed that I assumed that was the prefered way.
> Unless Alexandre says he prefers one way or the other I guess I will
> leave the documentation the way it is.

Not sure where that documentation is, but it's much better to diff new
files than to add separate attachments. The basic rules are: no
attachments, no mime crap, no line wrapping, a single patch per
mail. Basically if I can't do "cat raw_mail | patch -p0" it's in the
wrong format. I'd guess that at most 20% of the submitted patches
follow the rules :-(

> >Also, I found no mention of license info on the web page.
> >
> Well this makes Alexandre's job easier. It also makes it clear who
> owns copyright and what is permitted/required.

I don't need any license info, all patches sent to wine-patches are
assumed to be under a Wine-compatible license. If they are not there's
no point in submitting them.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com