This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [Setup PATCH] Eliminate next_dialog
- From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
- To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>,"Cygwin-Apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:17:40 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Setup PATCH] Eliminate next_dialog
- References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKMEGOEGAA.email@example.com>
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>> So, "thanks but no thanks"?
>> Pretty much. Thanks for the detailed list of places requiring changes,
>> I've seperated the changes into next_dialog removal, and other cleanup.
> There was no "other cleanup" in the patch I submitted, was there? I
> pinky-swore that there wouldn't be; I'd hate to have inadvertantly reneged
> such a sacred oath! ;-)
Oops. Seems I mis-remembered. It was the context refactoring that I stripped
out to minimalize the size of your patch. The other cleanup was things that
could be done that I noticed whilst understanding your patch.
> Can I at least get some changelog credit for the "detailed list"?
>> Smaller patches = faster reviews.
> Soo, is there any point to me continuing big chooser development? I
> have very little interest in going to a bunch of trouble getting a working
> patch together only to have it serve as a 'list of places' for somebody
> to reinvent the same wheels.
There is a significant difference between adding functionality (big
chooser), and removing dead code (next_dialog). In the latter case, once I
understood what your patch did, it was trivial to come up with a slightly
different way to remove the dead code, with much less impact on the
I've no intention of re-inventing big chooser.
It would be nice if you opted for slightly more modular concept patches, but
even if you do produce large multi-concept patches, I want that big chooser
too much to not help out seperating what you produce. It'll just take longer