Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB50618768 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60144 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-poi-dev-archive@poi.apache.org Received: (qmail 60092 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@poi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "POI Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@poi.apache.org Received: (qmail 60076 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 34E771A0484 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGMmW2cKlOcW for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from diamond.dnorth.net (diamond.dnorth.net [212.110.165.240]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 64E1842BA7 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2a01:348:1af:0:a64e:31ff:fe93:cb60] by diamond.dnorth.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aKsyU-0004VE-B7 for dev@poi.apache.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:26:54 +0000 Subject: Re: Format of submitted patches To: POI Developers List References: <569A825A.2030400@apache.org> From: David North Message-ID: <569BEB29.5070505@apache.org> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:27:37 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/01/16 07:52, Javen O'Neal wrote: > From http://poi.apache.org/guidelines.html#SubmittingPatches > """ > You may create your patch file using either of the following > approaches (the committers recommend the first): > Approach 1 - use Ant > Approach 2 - the manual way > Approach 3 - the git way > """ > > What is the current preference among the POI committers and community? I usually check things in and apologise for them afterwards ;) Seriously, though, I tend to use Eclipse to generate patches, though it does share a downside of "svn diff" in that it will omit binary files. Long term, I think we should make more use of pull requests on Github, and possibly move our upstream to Git. That seems to be how the rest of the world solves this problem (and git patch generates a format which includes binaries). ... > If we want to stick with ant as the recommended approach, could we do > something to address: > 1) for reviewers: make it easier to read the diff on mobile in a web browser > 2) mostly for the committer: easier to apply an ant-generated patch > tarball to a working copy Not sure about (1), unless Bugzilla can be made to do something smarter. For (2) it feels like we should have an "ant apply" target to consume "ant patch" output. David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org