From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/88211 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Two successive patches about the same function [ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:35:34 -0700 Message-ID: <87y3af86e1.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87zhux7u4z.fsf@portable.galex-713.eu> <87k1m1zedm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87k1lz8vp7.fsf_-_@portable.galex-713.eu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1540935231 15589 195.159.176.226 (30 Oct 2018 21:33:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:33:51 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M36423@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Oct 30 22:33:47 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbdy-0003ym-LP for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:33:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbg3-0001kV-ED; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:35:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbfu-0001hh-LL for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:35:46 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbft-00081D-2X for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:35:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (helo=blaine.gmane.org) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbfr-0003Y4-VI for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:35:43 +0100 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gHbdi-0003hi-Jv for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:33:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:APuI02FFHYBAHzJG+Ftqe/w2JVY= X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:88211 Archived-At: "Garreau, Alexandre" 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.