David E. Weekly said:
> I see a lot of people submitting patches here, myself included (that's
> why I joined the list!). What's the process for submitting patches? Some
> specific questions:
>
> - unified or contextual diffs?
Yes. :-)
I.e., either of those are good. *Other* forms of diff aren't, as they
generally work only if the file being patched is identical to the file
from which the diff is made, and that's not necessarily the case if other
people are modifying the file as well.
> - patch as inline, attachment, or URL?
Inline patches are often mangled by mail software; attachments appear to
be less likely to be mangled. URLs for patches also work, although
they're less convenient - probably best used for very large patches.
> - subject line saying [PATCH]?
That makes it easier to find mail with patches in it; for those of us who
get lots of mail and don't always have time to deal with it when it
arrives, that's helpful. It's not a requirement, but it's a good idea.
> - when can we expect some sort of deny/accept/revise feedback? (24
> hours, 1 week, or "never - just check CVS" are all acceptable answers)
It depends on how busy people are, how much thought the patch needs to be
reviewed, and the like. We generally can't make any guarantees. Whether
when a patch is checked in you get a reply depends on who checks it in - I
send mail, but others might not.