reasons for not accepting the patch

[Vijay Kiran Kamuju]

I think she developed the code while working for the company, unlike me. ;)
Then I think she should be doing as you have suggested.

Thank you for ur suggestions,
Vijay

On 8/12/06, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
> 2006/8/12, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <infyquest at gmail.com>:
> > [Why wasn't the patch
> >  http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-July/029145.html
> > accepted?]
>
> I looked at this a couple days ago, and sent this to the patches' author
> to encourage him to repost it:
>
> -- snip ---
> 1. The patch is missing the filename header, and cannot be applied
> to the sources by running 'patch'.
>
> 2.  the patch was posted with the following legal notice:
>
> "Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
> message and/or attachments to it may contain
> confidential or privileged information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
> information contained in this e-mail message
> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited."
>
> That tells us "You may not use this patch."
> You have to post patches without that.
>
> 3. the message did not contain any license information (e.g.
>  Author: Renu Rajput (Tata Inc.)
>  Copyright 2006 Tata Inc
>  License: LGPL.
> Adding that would help.
>
> 4. The message essentially repeated much of the bug report in bugzilla.
> That's not needed.  Just refer to the bug report.
>
> Any one of the above four might have been enough to cause the
> patch to be ignored.  Fix them all and you've got a good shot.
>
> Two more tips:
>
> 5. The bug report in bugzilla does not link to your proposed fix.
> Often after I post a proposed fix, I add a comment to bugzilla saying
> something like
> "Patch sent:
> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-July/029145.html"
> Not only does this give another way for people to stumble across and
> review your patch, it also helps avoid duplication of effort.
> I had no idea you had sent in a patch for this bug already!
>
> 6. Patches that do not get applied need to be resent after a few days.
> Every time you resend it, you should try to improve it or the test case
> a bit, and make sure it still applies against current cvs or git.
> Use the same subject line as before, but append "(resend)" to the end.
>
> Patches are like TCP/IP.  There is no ACK when a packet is corrupt,
> you have to resend after correcting a bit error!
> --- snip ---
>
> Hope that helps.
> - Dan
>
>
>