[cairo] text on win32

Carl Worth cworth at cworth.org
Tue Feb 13 16:46:39 PST 2007

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:39:02 -0800, "Daniel Amelang" wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I did a quick and
> > dirty manual application of your patch and it fixes the problem on my
> > end. I'm attaching the updated patch.

I've gone ahead and pushed that out now.

PS. Some comments on attaching patches:

> And once again I forgot to inline it  >_<

Actually, I was able to make your attached version work better. I
saved the attachment and ran "git-am < /path/to/attachment" and that

With the inline version I tried just piping the whole message to
git-am, but that didn't work. If you want to construct messages to
make that work, then you would take the following headers and put them
as your email headers and the initial body:

> From: Dan Amelang <dan at amelang.net>
> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:34:27 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Win32 text spacing problem
> Thanks to Jordan Miner for reporting the problem and a fix.
> ---

Then, commentary on the patch itself would go here, in between the
"---" separator and the diffstat stuff.

>  src/cairo-win32-surface.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/src/cairo-win32-surface.c b/src/cairo-win32-surface.c
> index 4025b94..6899c95 100644
> --- a/src/cairo-win32-surface.c
> +++ b/src/cairo-win32-surface.c

And then comes the patch content.

So that's what git-am expects if you send it a whole message.

That's definitely the form that's preferred by the Linux and git
communities for patch submission. I'm not totally sold on that style

When I'm involved in an email discussion of some code topic I like the
subject and primary content of the email message to actually be the
discussion---rather than having the commit message take over the
subject and primary content and then having the discussion inserted
into the middle of the stuff that git will be looking at.

So frankly, I'm happy to have emails attached, (as long as they are
not in some base64 encoding---it's still very important to be able to
reply to a patch and comment on the code directly).

I think all I'm really missing is MUA support for "pipe attachment to
process", (as opposed to "pipe message to process" which my MUA does

So anyway, feel free to just attach patches directly if you'd
like. You can do the inline thing if you prefer, but please ensure
that git-am will do the right thing if fed the entire message in that

Oh, another advantage of attaching the patches is that you can have a
whole series in a single attachment, (as generated by "git
format-patch --stdout"). If you do the "email message _is_ the patch"
approach then you end up needing to have several messages to contain
the whole series. Somehow the Linux/git people deal with that, but I
would personally find several independent messages much more awkward
than a self-contained attachment that can be fed to git-am directly.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/attachments/20070213/2f06f833/attachment.pgp

More information about the cairo mailing list