Re: [avr-llvm-devel] current status and future direction oftheavr-llvm project

[Josef E. <za...@za...>]

Weddington, Eric wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Myers [mailto:ato...@gm...] 
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:39 PM
>> To: avr...@li...
>> Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] current status and future 
>> direction oftheavr-llvm project
>>
>> RE: patch creation guidelines / standards
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Do you guys prefer making separate patch files for each 
>> source file or making one patch file based on the type of 
>> 'fix' it was for.
>> For example we have a Triple.h.diff and Triple.cpp.diff but 
>> we could make just one instead like...
>>
>> $    svn diff lib/Support/Triple.cpp 
>> include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h > Triple.dif
> 
> Patch-per-source-file doesn't make any sense. I've always worked on patch-per-logical-change which can span multiple files and directories.

Yes, as long as we have separate patches for configure.ac and configure
(or more generally speaking one patch file for user edited autoconf
files and one for generated output).