| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:43:18PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 +0000 Steve Long |
| 6 |
> | > | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I |
| 7 |
> | > | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you |
| 8 |
> | > | can do it fairly easily. |
| 9 |
> | > |
| 10 |
> | > It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access... |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could |
| 13 |
> | stand reviewing anyways). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yeah, because a tree-wide patch against a changing tree is really |
| 16 |
> practical. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Your changes will be fairly limited; pretty much tweaking LICENSE |
| 19 |
vars, mangling/adding to license/. Yes, the tree changes, but it |
| 20 |
doesn't change fast enough for such a patch to be instantly worthless |
| 21 |
(nor worthless in a few weeks, albeit a bit dated). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Such a change *should* have review anyways, since LICENSE isn't |
| 24 |
something that should be arbitrarily screwed with. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Keep in mind that someone else is going to have to handle the patch |
| 27 |
anyways, so it's out of your hands at that point; let them worry about |
| 28 |
how to handle it, meanwhile you're after the change so throw the |
| 29 |
delta their way. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his |
| 32 |
direction if you want things changed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
~harring |
Archives