[5/5] usp10: remote todo_wine

James Hawkins truiken at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 00:52:30 CST 2006

On 12/15/06, Clinton Stimpson <cjstimpson at utwire.net> wrote:
> Ok.  There are 4 functions that have to be implemented at the same time
> in order to not break any tests, because of how the tests were written.
> A few days ago, I sent a single patch that implemented those 4
> functions, including an update of the tests.
> It wasn't accepted, and it was suggested to break the patch up.  But, I
> can't break it up without breaking the tests.
> I do have more patches coming after this batch, and those will be
> smaller and atomic.
> So I guess I'm back to asking why my original patch wasn't accepted.  ??
> Should I resend it?

I don't understand what the problem is.  If you implement a function
and a test now passes, remove the todo_wine from the test.  Similarly,
if the test now fails, add a todo_wine around the test (and explain
that a later patch in the series makes the test pass again).  There's
nothing wrong with sending an implementation of a function that
doesn't fix the tests, assuming later functions change that.

P.S. Please bottom-post on mailing lists, it makes the conversation
easier to read.

James Hawkins

More information about the wine-devel mailing list