On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
This list runs with standard defaults of Mailman, a popular choice for<br>
running mailing list, as set up by R-Forge.<br>
<br>
In particular, message limits are 40kb. Larger messages are held and then<br>
create admin work. Yesterday, an attempt to send a 90kb message got rejected,<br>
and I as list owner got the bounce. The message (according to its body)<br>
claimed to contain "patches" to source code in Rcpp, yet it looked like it<br>
contained full copies of the files.<br></blockquote><div><br>It appears that the post got through in spite of the "rejection"?<br><br>At any rate, I tried to submit these changes three times, first a list<br>of changes spelled out so that Rcpp would compile using MSVC.<br>
Then as a private correspondence to Romain who said he would<br>ignore the submission because it was not posted to the list. And<br>finally as a post to this list, which resulted in my contributions<br>being rejected.<br>
<br>These changes consist of just a few small changes to existing<br>code (all ifdef-ed _MSC_VER so they have no impact on CRAN<br>builds), and three new files. Obviously I cannot generate context<br>diffs for new files, and the trivial changes to existing files can<br>
be found by grep-ing for _MSC_VER.<br><br>Dominick<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Just like any other open source project, we prefer _patches_ (and see [1] if<br>
you are unclear as to what these are -- they are not _modified copies_)<br>
rather than copies. If you want us to consider your work, the onus is on you<br>
to demonstrate a) what goal the change is meant to achieve and b) to clearly<br>
delineate what changes are to be made. Patches do the latter, whereas copies<br>
don't. Additional info on the motivation for the patch (clearer code, better<br>
performance, more foo, ...) also helps.<br>
<br>
I would suggest a single patch set (ie output from diff possibly pertaining<br>
to several files but one "logical" chunk) per email message so that the patch<br>
can be reviewed here. The patch should preferably be against the current SVN<br>
trunk as we as Rcpp authors tend not to work in branches. We also tend not<br>
to set, but commit logs clearly identify which revisions correspond to the<br>
actual tar ball releases.<br>
<br>
Thanks, Dirk<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_%28Unix%29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(Unix)</a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Dirk Eddelbuettel | <a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a> | <a href="http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com" target="_blank">http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Rcpp-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org">Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>