> On 17. 5. 2021, at 15:10, G.W. Haywood <g...@jubileegroup.co.uk> wrote: > > a simple unified diff and sending a patch by email
Here’s what happens when you do that: 1. somebody has to download your patch locally 2. somebody needs to triage the patch (and the issue) and if the description isn’t up-to-par write back to you 3. this might continue for a while ending up with multiple patches in multiple emails 4. somebody has to create a git branch out of the patch 5a. the patch might not apply because the branch could have been modified meanwhile, so back to 2) or 5b. the developer will have to spend a time fixing the patch themselves. 6. then there might be additional questions that goes between you and the reporter 7. oh no, the developer went to PTO for next two weeks and everything is stalled because there’s no record of the communication So, when you say “simple unified diff” it means a huge pile of additional work with the record of any changes and communications being inaccessible to other team members (or it will have to be posted publicly creating clutter in the mailing list). So, what’s simple for you will burn time for multiple people that could be spent on fixing stuff. On the contrary: * A good descriptive bug report in the GitLab issue helps * Merge requests that follows the coding standard, has a good commit message and good description and is based on the current `main` branch helps… So, is it really that much to ask? Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ond...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
