[PATCH] d3dx9_36: Implement ID3DXSkinInfoImpl_UpdateSkinnedMesh.

[Vijay Kiran Kamuju]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:20 PM Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2019 12:40 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
> > It seems I have to do a deeper analysis of the code.
> > I checked only whether the tests are successful or not.
>
> For what it's worth (and since the concern was brought up to me offline
> by someone else), I feel like I should point out that Staging patches
> are not necessarily correct, either functionally or stylistically.
> That's the basic reason (even if it's not the only reason) that those
> patches are in Staging. Hence anyone who's interested in upstreaming
> Staging patches should treat the patch as their own responsibility, and
> should ensure that the patch is correct, and ideally have also tested it
> themself. That's part of what the signoff means. It's also the reason
> why Alistair and I are slow to upstream patches from Staging. There were
> a few hundred we tried to push upstream at an early point when we took
> over the repository, but most of those were the easy ones. We're still
> stuck with 800 patches which are nontrivial or take a fair amount of
> background knowledge to understand (like everything involved with ACLs)
> or, worse, which have no bug report or test application attached to them
> and thus no way to ensure that they are actually doing the right thing
> and fixing the problem (or, even more critically, will still be doing
> the right thing if we make some modifications.)
>
I am trying to write tests and improve upon or rewrite the patches.
For most of the patches tests are present.
> Bottom line is, inasmuch as you should be expected to understand and
> write your own patches and ensure they're correct, the same rules apply
> to patches someone else wrote. You can't implicitly trust that they're
> correct, even according to that person's standards, and you certainly
> can't trust that they're correct just because they're in Staging.
>
>
Sometime I try to contact the author, but for some old patches I doubt
the author remembers the
application or why he/she has written the patch. We have to try to
push the patches upstream regardless,
as there are no explanations or rejection reasons given. This makes it
a bit harder to improve upon the
existing patch. The upstreaming is currently a slow process and
reviews are incomplete.
So I am trying to pick some easy ones and old ones so we get a proper
review at least this time.
Rejection without proper comments is always a major pain point for Wine.