[Toybox] new toy : w command

[David Seikel]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:40:59 -0700 Tim Bird <tbird20d at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Gaurang Shastri
> <gmshastri at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Please find attached the initial implementation of "w" command.
> >
> > Output after compiling my code with toybox :
> > {{{
> > [root at stark toybox-0.3.0]# ./toybox w
> > USER     TTY             LOGIN@                 FROM
> > root        tty2      Wed Jul 11 18:29:24 2012  ( )
> > rpmuser  pts/1    Wed Jul 11 21:33:15 2012  (43.88.80.109)
> > rpmuser  pts/2    Wed Jul 11 19:23:09 2012  (:0.0)
> > rpmuser  pts/3    Tue Jul 17 20:33:41 2012  (43.88.80.208)
> > }}}
> >
> 
> Here is some feedback:
> 
> It is better to provide the patch inline, in the message body, rather
> than as an attachment.  This allows people to easily respond to
> individual parts of the patch by commenting directly in a response
> e-mail.  Comments can be placed in-line with the submitted code.

I thought it was generally agreed that attached patches are better
than inlined ones.  Inline patches can get mangled to the point where
the patch program fails to actually use them.  Attached patches are a
separate item that wont get mangled.  Look back in this list you will
see inline patches that had this problem.  Having the patch actually
work is more important than the ability to comment on them in place.

In my experience with mailing lists where the patch is sent to the list
by the source code management tool, people usually just quote the
entire patch as one big blob when commenting on it.  Even if the patch
is megabytes long, and their response is two or three words.

-- 
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/attachments/20120719/0e9359bf/attachment-0002.sig>