On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 22:48, Daniel Brockman wrote: > I cleaned up your patch a bit; hope you don't mind! :-) > I'm new to this list too, so please forgive me (and educate me) if this > is not how it works. For instance, I wasn't sure whether these things > are too trivial to mention, but decided to go ahead since I had already > modified the patch anyway -- in fact originally to see what a meta-patch > looked like. :-) Hey, Daniel, Gabriel, * It would be best to get the patch into bugzilla; patches on the mailing list can easily get forgotten about. * In general, the idea seems plausible to me. Do other toolkits / window systems support this? * The cleanups to the patch look good to me; while it's not hard to do this type of cleanup when applying the patch it would take a while to write them up and explain them, so it's great that people are looking at each other's patches. * The one thing I'd do as well is change the return type to be gboolean rather than gint. Consistency with the prototype is more important than consistency with the rest of the file, IMO. * I guess the filtering is a bit overaggressive on gnome.org if we are rejecting attach called blah-scroll.patch as SCR files.... Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part