Re: [hatari-devel] Hatari screen dialog regression

[Andreas Grabher <andreas_g86@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Am 13.08.2025 um 22:15 schrieb Andreas Grabher <andreas_g86@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 13.08.2025 um 21:37 schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 13.8.2025 22.05, Andreas Grabher wrote:
>>>> Am 11.08.2025 um 01:11 schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On 10.8.2025 20.53, Andreas Grabher wrote:
>>>>>> Von: Andreas Grabher <andreas_g86@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> Am 07.08.2025 um 22:21 schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>> I just checked the patches to see what would need to be merged into Previous. I recognised that configuration handling is done in paths.c now. I don’t think it is a good idea to increase dependencies this way. It would be better to create a function in configuration like Configuration_GetScreenShotDir() which returns either the default or the user selected directory. That way paths.c can be untouched and code structure is more logical.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hatari has a quite good code structure, but it seems to get eroded more and more over time. I think it is a win-win situation if portability is taken into account when editing the source files. (H)Atari-specific code should not go into common files.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could you propose a patch?
>>> I appended the requested patch. You know that your code structure has improved if the amount of includes is reduced.
>> 
>> I don't think this is improvement.  It changes Paths_GetScreenShotDir() function into one that should not be called, without documenting that, or changing the function name to match its new functionality.
>> 
>> At least its name should be changed to Paths_GetScreenShotDefaultDir(), and comment be updated to state that Configuration_GetScreenShotDir() should be called instead.
>> 
>> Please provide patch with "git format-patch" so that you get correct attribution for the change!
>> 
>> 
>>    - Eero
>> 
> Appended is an improved patch with new function name. As mentioned I have no git here. But the patch can be easily applied using
> 
> patch -p1 -i /path/to/paths_fix2.diff
>

Attachment: paths_fix2.diff
Description: Binary data

Does the fact that 2.6.1 has been released mean, that my patch (which I made on your request) is ignored?