Re: commit: Fix specifier inheritance behavior
Didier Verna writes:
> A patch would be nice, but if you don't feel like hacking
texi, I can
> do that part.
I don't mind doing it, but I have no idea where you would like to see
this happening, given that it's a bug fix. Unless the bug is
"documented" somewhere of course :-)
Well, as I say it looks to me like the facility was there in the
lowest level. Since you don't understand what I'm saying, I should
look more closely and see if anything needs to be said at all.
> Did you ever post a patch (besides that auto-commit notice)? I
don't
> recall seeing it, and Vin responded to the commit notice....
Err, no, because it was my understanding that after the transition to
mercurial, we were not supposed to do so anymore, precisely because the
automatic commit notice was doing that.
Mostly people have been sending patches, that's why I noticed.
Unfortunately, the automatic commit notices suck as documentation.
First, there's no provision for discussing motivation and other
background to the patch, the stuff that generally doesn't belong in
ChangeLogs. Second, they send the wrong patch any time Mercurial
merges, ie, in any case where it is an improvement over CVS. :-(
Specifically, it looks like the patch is undoing other people's work.
Don't worry about changing Patcher's docs. I'll just use them as a
club to get Mike to fix the commit 'bot.
> What was all the whitespace fiddling doing i nthat patch?
It's my auto-cleanup that's been at work since I started hacking in
XEmacs 14 years ago. You've never noticed before
Probably because only Aidan offends in every single ChangeLog.
I wish you'd submit those as separate patches, though.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches