Re: Two successive patches about the same function [

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

"Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:

> On 2018-10-28 at 19:16, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> I'm less certain about this. It's one of those cases where probably no
>> one remembers why it is the way it is, and no one wants to touch it
>> because who knows how things might suddenly break. If I were you I
>> would report two separate bugs, so that the first had a better chance
>> of being accepted.
>
> I’ve a question about patches: a patch mention the original version, as
> long as its context, so if I end trying to submit a patch for the same
> function, the second will either base on the version patched by the
> first, either be based on original function before first patch, and then
> won’t it have problem applying after first has been applied?
>
> In our case, the second patch is about simplifying, improving and
> factorizing `gnus-simplify-subject', and arrives after the one stripping
> the “concat "Re: "”, but still having it in the version of the function
> it patches.
>
> Or maybe should I report without a patch tentative? on another hand,
> with what I did it’s not that long, and I suppose at worse it’s possible
> to ignore the (then incorrect (or rather outdated?)) patch…

Yes, because both patches touch the same bit of code, one will have to
explicitly come before the other. I would definitely submit patches with
your bug reports, and simply mention in the second report that it's
meant to be applied after the first.