programs: add rudimentary dxdiag
jeffzaroyko at gmail.com
Wed Jul 2 18:35:02 CDT 2008
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Louis Lenders
<xerox_xerox2000 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Juan Lang <juan.lang <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056911.html
>> Ah. That's not enough to judge where your patches are going.
> I already explained, see http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=14342 and
> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-June/056659.html. That's what
> i was intended to go to.
>> series of patches, adding a stub program, then adding a little more to
>> it, and so on, would help judge the final product, while considering
>> each piece independently.
> Here;s the whole patch that i sent a while ago, but i was advised after that to
> first sent a simple stub because the patch was too large:
> It has the risk of getting rejected partway
>> or wholesale, but has a higher likelihood of getting comments. It
>> also removes a lot of the roundtrip time with patches.
>> Sorry if the guidance isn't very clear. Don't be afraid to ask AJ on
>> irc for more feedback too.
> Anyway. thanks for your explanation
You might also consider generating your patches using `git
format-patch --keep-subject origin` as per
http://www.winehq.org/site/sending_patches and sending your mail in
plain text, not html.
More information about the wine-devel