[Rcpp-devel] On mailing list defaults, and suggested patch submission

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

This list runs with standard defaults of Mailman, a popular choice for
running mailing list, as set up by R-Forge.

In particular, message limits are 40kb. Larger messages are held and then
create admin work. Yesterday, an attempt to send a 90kb message got rejected,
and I as list owner got the bounce.  The message (according to its body)
claimed to contain "patches" to source code in Rcpp, yet it looked like it
contained full copies of the files.

Just like any other open source project, we prefer _patches_ (and see [1] if
you are unclear as to what these are -- they are not _modified copies_)
rather than copies. If you want us to consider your work, the onus is on you
to demonstrate a) what goal the change is meant to achieve and b) to clearly
delineate what changes are to be made.  Patches do the latter, whereas copies
don't. Additional info on the motivation for the patch (clearer code, better
performance, more foo, ...) also helps.

I would suggest a single patch set (ie output from diff possibly pertaining
to several files but one "logical" chunk) per email message so that the patch
can be reviewed here.  The patch should preferably be against the current SVN
trunk as we as Rcpp authors tend not to work in branches.  We also tend not
to set, but commit logs clearly identify which revisions correspond to the
actual tar ball releases.

Thanks, Dirk


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(Unix)

-- 
Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com