Hi,
Thank you very much for reviewing my patch. I'll come up with another
one to address your points, and I'll submit it with a feature-request
bug report as you suggest.
I do have two questions:
> >- "NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION",
> >+ "NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION", "EMPTY_DEFAULT_FOR_BLOB",
>
> This and the next are very minor, but if you can avoid removing a
> line and adding a line, then we're sure to avoid merging conflicts.
Sure.
> > /*HIGH_NOT_PRECEDENCE*/ 19,
> >- /*NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION*/ 22
> >+ /*NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION*/ 22,
> >+ /*EMPTY_DEFAULT_FOR_BLOB*/ 22
>
> (again)
In this case, I need to add a "," between the previous entry and mine.
I could instead write ",22", to avoid changing an existing line; does
avoiding merge conflicts trump coding style in something like this, at
least during patch review?
Also, is a unified diff perfectly fine? Most diffs I've seen around
MySQL are done with -c. I'm not in the habit of using -c, but if it
makes it easier for the right folks to read patches I can change my
unified ways.
Thanks,
--Pete
----------------------------------
Pete Harlan
ArtSelect, Inc.
harlan@stripped
http://www.artselect.com
ArtSelect is a subsidiary of a21, Inc.
