Rich Holton wrote:
As my first attempt at doing some development work for
MediaWiki, I
have what I believe to be a fix for bug 190
[...]
So what is the correct next step? Instructions on meta
suggest that I
post the patch to this list.
Whichever page suggested that needs updating: due to problems with
viruses, trojans, etc, this list now blocks most attachments,
including patches. The best place to post it is therefore on bugzilla
- and in this case, that's a doubly good idea, since there's a bug
report tracking this issue already. Just click "Create a New
Attachment", and remember to tick the box marked "patch". You may also
want to edit the "keywords" field on the bug report to say "patch",
in
case someone searches for this to find things to check in to CVS.
Is there some particular difference tool
that patches are created with? Or do I just post the code with
instructions about where to put it?
Well, generally the GNU "diff" utility is used - use "diff -U3" to
give a patch in "unified format" with 3 lines of context either side
of each change. If there are changes to more than one file, and you
got the source via CVS, you can do something like "cvs diff -U3", and
it should output everything you've changed all in one go. [I won't go
into any more detail unless you ask, because I don't know how familar
or not you are with such tools]
There used to be the test wiki to allow for more
people to check this
kind of change. How is that done these days?
IIRC, running a test wiki on the foundation's servers was considered a
bit of a security and resources risk. Once a change has been checked
into CVS (which implies somebody with access noticing it on bugzilla),
it will find its way onto various people's test installs, but I don't
know if anyone's running anything publically at the moment.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]