From sources-request at octave dot org Fri Jun 18 08:11:09 2004
Subject: Re: Patch for documentation
From: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
To: David Bateman <David dot Bateman at motorola dot com>
Cc: Federico Zenith <zenith at chemeng dot ntnu dot no>, sources@octave.org
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:08:59 -0500

On 18-Jun-2004, David Bateman <David dot Bateman at motorola dot com> wrote:

| > Anyway, I'll work on the changelog this weekend. What scared me was to build 
| > 109 patches and changelogs, if I can make only one that will be easier :-)
| 
| If the changes are the same in several files then group the changelog entries
| together to save time. In any case John would do that in his changelog in
| any case.
| 
| I'm not sure splitting the patch up would have been that hard, as all
| of the changes are isolated. The problem would have been tracking 109
| patches to see if they had been accepted or not, which would (will) be
| a real pain. In any case I spent the time to give the feedback as a 
| peer review of the patch so that John might be more confident of accepting
| the patch (without vander) as a single piece.

Sorry, I'm sure my original message was not clear.  It's not that I
want 109 patches (i.e., one for each file that was touched) vs. one
large patch for all changes in all files.  What is easiest to handle
is a patch that only solves one problem.  So, if you want to fix the
appearance of H_\infty or H_2, etc., one patch to do that in all files
is best.  If a patch attempts to solve several problems at once, and
for some reason part of the patch should not be applied, then it is
much harder to identify the sections of diffs that should not be
applied.

Also, I don't care about ChangeLog entries for the docs, only the code
changes.  Sorry again if that was not clear from my earlier posting.

Thanks,

jwe