Fwd: Patch for testing My Collection send email parameters

[Justin Obara]

Again, used the wrong e-mail adddress... Please see the forwarded message below.

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: Justin <justin.obara at utoronto.ca>
> From: fluid-work-owner at fluidproject.org
> Date: February 25, 2010 11:11:03 AM EST
> Resent-To: Justin Obara <obara.justin at gmail.com>
> To: justin.obara at utoronto.ca
> Subject: Re: Patch for testing My Collection send email parameters
> 
> Thank you for posting to the fluid-work mailing list. Unfortunately,
> we are unable to post your message because you are not a member of the
> list. Please join the fluid-work mailing list
> (http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work) and repost your
> message, or contact the list administrators
> fluid-work-owner at fluidproject.org for help. 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Justin <justin.obara at utoronto.ca>
> Date: February 25, 2010 10:37:08 AM EST
> To: Svetoslav Nedkov <snedkov at asteasolutions.com>
> Cc: Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com>, Fluid Work <fluid-work at fluidproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Patch for testing My Collection send email parameters
> 
> 
> Hi Sveto, 
> 
> Thanks for the patch. Right now we are only making commits that affect what we need to get done for performance. So don't be surprised or worried if it takes a couple of weeks to get reviewed and committed.
> 
> On 2010-02-25, at 7:02 AM, Svetoslav Nedkov wrote:
> 
>> Also I have a question about the best approach for creating patches modifying the same code - this seems to limit the possibility to work on two issues before the first one is resolved. So the only solution I could think of was to create two patches for patch B created after patch A over the same code base - one that is supposed to be applied after patch A and one that could be applied separately without the changes from A. This will involve implementing the changes twice. Can you advise on that issue?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by same code. Do you mean in the same file or for example the same function?
> 
> I defer to Colin on this one. He's reviewed and submitted far more patches than I have. However, I think in general though it would be better if patches were self contained, non-conflicting and no dependencies between them. So neither A nor B should contain the same changes. I understand that this may not always be possible, so in those circumstances creating two patches for the same issue may be the appropriate solution. But again, Colin may have some more insight into this. 
> 
> Hope I've helped somewhat.
> JustinHi Sveto, 
> 
> Thanks for the patch. Right now we are only making commits that affect what we need to get done for performance. So don't be surprised or worried if it takes a couple of weeks to get reviewed and committed.
> 
> On 2010-02-25, at 7:02 AM, Svetoslav Nedkov wrote:
> 
>> Also I have a question about the best approach for creating patches modifying the same code - this seems to limit the possibility to work on two issues before the first one is resolved. So the only solution I could think of was to create two patches for patch B created after patch A over the same code base - one that is supposed to be applied after patch A and one that could be applied separately without the changes from A. This will involve implementing the changes twice. Can you advise on that issue?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by same code. Do you mean in the same file or for example the same function?
> 
> I defer to Colin on this one. He's reviewed and submitted far more patches than I have. However, I think in general though it would be better if patches were self contained, non-conflicting and no dependencies between them. So neither A nor B should contain the same changes. I understand that this may not always be possible, so in those circumstances creating two patches for the same issue may be the appropriate solution. But again, Colin may have some more insight into this. 
> 
> Hope I've helped somewhat.
> Justin
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20100225/2276d8a1/attachment.html>