ntdll: Improve stub of NtQueryEaFile.
bunglehead at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 03:37:19 CDT 2015
On 10.06.2015 11:00, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
> I understand your concerns, but from my understanding you also don't want
> patches which for example temporarily introduce bugs, just to fix them
> shortly afterwards.
> Qian Hongs original patch is available here:
> The original version lacked proper parameter checking, and also didn't clear
> the full buffer. To be honest, there isn't really much left from the original
> version, but I still think its fair to give attribution to Qian. We were working
> together on fixing various msys2 bugs, and this was one of them.
See, but there's no way to know that when you submit a patch and not Qian.
> Do you have a better suggestion how to deal with such situations in the future?
> In case of active contributors I can ask them to fix the most critical bugs of
> course, and afterwards put my patch on top of it. But what about inactive
> contributors? What about series of patches where the initial idea turned out to
> be wrong, and it was later fixed by a different contributor on top of the
> existing code?
I think the best way is to have original author submitting it in any
case, after it's submitted you can help improving it right here on
wine-devel, that everyone reads daily. Getting patch accepted is one
goal, but not the only; educational value of getting a review is huge,
what I believe we want (and author should too I think) is to make next
patches from this author increasingly better, to the point when you
don't have to improve anything.
> I think it would be really nice to define a bit more exactly what is allowed/
> preferred here and what not, especially when thinking about long standing
> problems like the inclusion of the Pulseaudio patchset.
That's different and should be separated in my opinion.
P.S. sorry if I disrupted this conversation.
More information about the wine-devel