20 Nov
2014
20 Nov
'14
4:21 p.m.
Wow.. (still) a touchy subject, by the number of reactions (no pun
intended).
On 2014-11-14 22.45, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
We already submit fixes to Wine.
Since Wine is upstream, patches are sent to Wine first.
Ah.. So it's already done. Bless your heart :)
I didn't 'reject' your patch blindly.
I didn't think you did.. honestly. I understood you had a reason.
But my attempt at "removing wine code" from that patch must have seemed
feeble :/
After viewing the readme file, I felt like "OMG, I'll have to write a
new utility just to
check that anything I patch don't stray into the hands-off list." Ugh.
There is also a change into shlwapi and freetype,
which is 3rd party.
Changes to 3rd party code give silent reverts or conflicts at update
time, better be safe than sorry.
I can understand that sentiment..
And I guess you can understand how overwhelming the "hands off" list is
for an occasional contributor.
Has anyone out there already written (in C/C++) any tools that could be
used to ease this?
@David
============================================================================
What you suggest is that those developers who donate
their time for
the project should also take on the task of reviewing Wine changes,
and sending patches to them, instead of letting the original author of
the patch send it to the Wine patch review system directly, which
already has their own set of volunteers.
No, that's not what meant at all..
I simply meant that if I sit with a nine headed hydra of a code, and Joe
Small hands in a patch
that seeps into code I handle anyway, I could simply post it upstream
with my own edits next time.
And .. According to Sylvain it's already done.
I understand that submitting patches to wine can be
complicated
sometimes,
That's got to be the understatement of the century ;)
Just to get into the right perspective, perhaps I should introduce myself..
I'm 57 years old and have been writing in C (and Assembly) since some
time before IBM made their first PC.
Not that I think you made mistaken assumptions :)
I'm not saying that patches belonging to Wine
components should
automatically be discarded,
I think @Mario said it well..
Review is something that always requires someone
experienced *in the
area*. Otherwise, it's kind of worthless.
Even if it's made by someone talented, we need someone who is
recognized as such by Wine devs.
@Aleksey
=================================================================================
"Do you volunteer? :-)"
I'll trade you...
You figure out what's wrong with the wonky USB CDC in Arduino's ATm32u4
series,
that defeats the port notification mechanism in the Windows USB CDC driver,
making it only send generic raw USB device notifications, not ports..
Nah.. Just kidding :)
On a more serious note, I think Wine probably hate my guts, and would rather
see me dangle from a pine branch than accept a patch, even if I supplied
1000 lines of proof of my point.
Well.. perhaps not?
Exqueeze the OT, it's late and my brain's turned to mush :P
@Timo
==================================================================================
Getting patches into wine is kinda ... a PITA.
You can say that again.
If we have code that is *definately* broken. And
potentially easy to
get into wine, then it makes sense to invest the time to get it into
there.
I agree with that.. had it been just a few patches. But put it in
perspective of this BOOL case..
Patching 400 locations in 190 files of someone elses code may be all in
a days work for some of you,
but for me it's kinda nerve wracking, and quite simply I was more
concerned to not make a mistake
than taking even more time to wander the vast unknown arena of "hands
off" and what not...
I'm sure you can understand that..
I wouldn't want to invest the time to get this
into wine, for reasons
of ... experience :)
You can say that again ;)
Pick the raisins from the cake then.. :P
@David
===============================================================================
To me it's a matter of readability/semantics.
My sentiment too.
@Eric
===============================================================================
I think @Timo said it well..
Most win32 APIs that return BOOL are described in MSDN
with something
like:
"If the function succeeds, the return value is *nonzero*."
And there are Windows APIs that return BOOL with values other than 0
and 1.
And @Rafal, who observes..
The problem exists if we assign value obtained from
bit operators e.g.
"BOOLEAN HasFlag = a & SOME_FLAG"
Best Regards
// Love
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De :* Love Nystrom <love.nystrom(a)gmail.com>
*À :* ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
*Envoyé le :* Vendredi 14 novembre 2014 12h56
*Objet :* [ros-dev] ReactOS/Wine patches.
@Sylvain,
It occurred to me that since we have a lot of Wine code in ReactOS,
there will often be cases where ReactOS patches target Wine code.
Instead of just rejecting those patches, which is likely to make them
never see the light of day, the ReactOS programmers who maintain
our Wine code could act as liaisons, and review/post them to Wine.
I think that would make it more likely that Wine will commit those
patches in a timely fashion, since they are likely to know our liaisons,
and we would gain by a faster turnaround on fixes in Wine code.
What do You think?
Best Regards
// Love
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org <mailto:Ros-dev@reactos.org>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev