[Ns-developers] Request for Merge -- Validation

[craigdo@ee.washington.edu]

> Craig, before I comment on the patch, this patch is a good example to 
> ask the following.  Is this the type of patch that the submitter (or 
> maintainer) should upload to the Rietvald tool?  And should 
> the review 
> be on ns-3-reviews mailing list?  What do the maintainers 
> think about this?

This is a very simple patch and the code is mostly new added stuff.  Given
this, I looked at Mathieu's "Submitting code to ns-3" text file sent out on
April 27th (the last version I saw) and decided that this was the operative
section:

---------- Begin Included Text ----------

  i. A simple patch
  -----------------

  Patches can be attached to a bug report or sent to our developer
mailing-lists.

  The UNIX "diff" tool is the most common way of producing a patch: a 
  patch is a text-based representation of the difference between
  two text files or two directories with text files in them. If you have
  two files, "original.cc", and, "modified.cc", you can generate a patch
  with the command "diff -u original.cc modified.cc". If you wish to
  produce a patch between two directories, use the command 
  "diff -uprN original modified".

  Make sure you specify to the reviewer where the original files came 
  from and make sure that the resulting patch file does not contain 
  unexpected content by performing a final inspection of the patch 
  file yourself.

  Patches such as this are sufficient for simple bug fixes or very simple
  small features.

---------- End Included Text ----------

So I sent a patch to the ns-developers mailing list.  

The options in that document are:

  - a simple patch
  - a binary bundle
  - a hosted clone
  - patch emails

I don't see anything there about rietveld tools or ns-3-reviews mailing
lists any more.  I know there was lots of talk about this earlier in April,
but the latest document doesn't mention it.  I just followed the book of
instructions :-)

I personally don't have a handle on the outcome of all of those April
discussions other than this last document.

-- Craig