riched20: corrected EM_GETLINE and wrong hWnd patches (combined
wdev at foltman.com
Fri Jun 30 17:01:41 CDT 2006
James Hawkins wrote:
> I've just looked at this patch and the previous patch Thomas sent in,
> and saying that this is roughly based on his patch is putting it
The EM_GETLINE code is completely changed (I haven't even seen his "new"
before sending the patch in, and the old one was the one Alexandre wrote
it needed fixing). Actually knowing about that patch would save me an
hour or so of unnecessary work.
The testing code is by Thomas and is completely unchanged, too. Yes, I
should have emphasized that in the change log. But it wasn't meant to
rip him off.
> I see that you've added the 1.0 emulation change, but that
> doesn't warrant you putting your name on his patch.
I guess, let him decide about that.
> then add your code in a new patch, or to make him aware of the
> problems in his implementation,
The fact is:
- he sent the original patch long time ago, and he didn't fix the
problems until very recently (because Alexandre only told us about the
problem after I reminded him about his patch?)
- the mail from Alexandre about the patch being wrong was explicitly
addressed to me, so with lack of reaction from Thomas I assumed I should
update the patch
- "my" cleanup was created *independently* from the new (see above)
patch from Thomas, and I'm not even sure which version I like more (the
new version from Thomas is more compact, and multiplying nCopy by
current character size may not be as patch-reject-prone as I initially
thought, given Alexandre's stance about nBPC trick)
- the cleanup involved removing lots of the original code and replacing
it by my own (only in EM_GETLINE handler, not in the test code) - just
compare the old vs "my" version; that's why I decided to add "roughly"
- I think I have enough of "genuinely mine" and rather complex code in
riched20 (like initial versions of style management, display, wrapper)
to not be suspected of wanting to take credit for a loop doing
(essentially) strcat and p=p->next, that I didn't code from scratch, at
cost of Thomas :)
> missing feature, but either way, he deserves credit for the code he
> wrote, and not just saying that your code was based off of his.
He obviously does. The previous version of the patch (which I re-sent)
HAS his name as the sole author of the changes.
More information about the wine-devel