A whole load of random patches

[Nikolaj Hald Nielsen]

That sounds really great! :-) I was quite worried about you getting
the impression that we were not interested in your work which is most
definitively not the case. Big "multi-function" patches are just a
real headache for many different reasons.

- Nikolaj

On Jan 2, 2008 6:55 PM, Leo Franchi <lfranchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:05 AM, N.C. Wilson wrote:
>
> > Sorry. That makes perfect sense. I'll split it up soon. I was not
> > keeping
> > track of the changes as I did them because it started out as just
> > general
> > fiddling trying to get to know the amarok code for the first time,
> > fixing
> > things as I went.
> >
> > Nicholas
>
> Awesome!
>
> i'll take a look once they are split up and we can probably usher
> things along pretty quickly.
>
> leo
>
>
> >
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2008 12:40 pm Nikolaj Hald Nielsen wrote:
> >> Nicholas,
> >>
> >> It looks like you have put a lot of work into this, and we all really
> >> appreciate it. In general though, we dont accept patches that changes
> >> more than one thing at once, as they are simply to hard to read
> >> through for us. Also by having one huge patch, you run the risk of us
> >> not beign able to commit all of it because some small part is wrong/a
> >> bad idea/counter to the general design.
> >>
> >> As I would really like to se many of your fixes and improvements
> >> committed, there are two things we can do. The best option is for you
> >> to create a set of patches instead of one monster patch. If your
> >> changes dot overlap each other too much, this should be relatively
> >> simple to do. Another option is that I could *try* to read through it
> >> and, if I can get someone else to give a second oppinion, maybe
> >> commit
> >> it as is. The problem with the second approach is that it wil take a
> >> relatively long time ( I dont have time to look at it today ), and we
> >> risk that parallel changes to the code in svn will make parts of the
> >> patch not apply cleanly, and trying to fix those kind of issues
> >> with a
> >> patch this size is something I would _really_ like to avoid.
> >>
> >> To sum up, I am sure you have done great work, and I am most
> >> definitively going to try it out myself, but the format of your patch
> >> causes us some serious issues. I hope you are not too discouraged by
> >> this. If you need any help splitting up your patch, or you have any
> >> other question, drop by our channel #amarok on irc.freenode.net
> >>
> >> - Nikolaj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amarok mailing list
> > Amarok at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>