MPR patches

[Hugh McMaster]

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
> Regarding 1. & 3. should I perform a resend with that changed, or should
> I change it in the next patch I submit?
>
> For 2., this is done on purpose. Real implementation will come in a
> later patch (already ready and tested here :-)).

Personally, I'd submit your real implementation of WNetCancelConnection2W
as patch 1 of 2. Then submit your implementation patch using the WCHAR * style
as the second patch. 

But if you decide to keep to your original order, please change the style before sending.

You should also rebase your patches on the latest git. Your current patch
has an offset of -87 lines.

As for your security certificate, although it doesn't prevent the patch from applying,
it would be better removed, if possible.

Le 27/07/2016 à 13:40, Hugh McMaster a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 6:40 AM, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
>  
>> Is there any reason why the MPR patches are left abandoned? There are
>> others awaiting in my queue...
> 
>> +    PWSTR name = strdupAtoW(lpName);
>> +    if (!name)
>> +        return ERROR_NOT_CONNECTED;
>     
> 1. New code should use the WCHAR * style.
> 
> 2. All three functions call WNetCancelConnection2W, but that function is a stub:
> 
> DWORD WINAPI WNetCancelConnection2W( LPCWSTR lpName, DWORD dwFlags, BOOL fForce )
> {
>     FIXME( "(%s, %08X, %d), stub\n", debugstr_w(lpName), dwFlags, fForce );
> 
>     return WN_SUCCESS;
> }
> 
> 3. Your mail has a StartCom Secure Digital Certificate attached. This has been mangled, as can be seen at the bottom of your patch: http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/124723