Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:11:42 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To PR Senders Message-ID: <20040821001142.GO5433@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20040820222329.GA29749@gothmog.gr> References: <20040820133029.GE63041@abigail.blackend.org> <20040820103306.5f0ffb6f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20040820205835.GH63041@abigail.blackend.org> <20040820222329.GA29749@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--XyBMaHrM0hrbbr/O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:23:29AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >=20 > I think the text leaves the decision to the submitter for a purpose. >=20 > Very large patches, like for instance a whole new subtree of doc/ with the > translation of several articles to ancient Greek, is probably going to be > huge to include as a diff. The exact size where linking to an external > site makes sense is a bit subjective though. I've seen PRs in the past > where people worked on entire chapters of the Handbook and did very well > so, by including large text diffs. >=20 > Common sense should be applied whenever possible, in my opinion. >=20 > * NOTE: Some other things might be of importance too when deciding if the > submitter includes the diff in the PR. For example, there are at least t= he > following two scenarions of people working on PRs: >=20 > 1) The "offline" hacker. >=20 > Someone logs into freefall, grabs a set of PRs with `query-pr -F' and sav= es > them to a Unix mailbox file. Then copies the mailbox to his workstation > and disconnects from the net. He fires up a mail reader and points it to > the PR mailbox. >=20 > In this case having the patches as part of the PR is MAGNIFICENT. > No need to reconnect just to test a single patch! >=20 > 2) The "online" hacker. >=20 > Sitting on a workstation at work, Joe Random Hacker fires up a browser and > lists the active PRs. He notes down a few PR numbers that he might be > interested in and uses his "spare time" between meetings and other random > business work to hack merily away. >=20 > In this case having the URL to the patch isn't really a problem. >=20 > Both modes of working have their advantages and disadvantages and I've > alternated between the two a few times. I fall firmly into the second category; I have broadband, wireless LAN and access pretty much all the time I want it at no extra cost, but I still prefer to see inline patches. Pulling down a patch via fetch or similar is basically a PITA when they need follow ups in the PR, and I would rather see patches in GNATS for pretty much everything. As keramida stated though, this is personal preference (and heavily coloured by the fact that I have a large amount of bandwidth available at little cost). Ceri --=20 It is not tinfoil, it is my new skin. I am a robot. --XyBMaHrM0hrbbr/O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJpM+ocfcwTS3JF8RAi6uAJ9mNxOE0+PAyDGeY5piy5LAi1gxuwCfTRUu GxdktA0m37XESuxN4vye8jA= =xtvs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XyBMaHrM0hrbbr/O--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040821001142.GO5433>