On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 10:28:39 +0200 Tim Ruehsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 9:58:44 AM CEST Matthew White wrote: > > > > I posted 0001 and 0002 before (see links above), I attach them here too. > > > > > > Did you see that I answered to 0001 (security considerations) !? > > > So I just applied 0002 and tested with your archive unpacked. > > > Likely that is why valgrind complained... > > > > > > Tim > > > > Yes, I saw. I'm evaluating the situation. > > Ok, good to know. > > > I have to rebase my branch over the master, so I have a clear view of the > > commits not yet applied. > > > > Did I forget to reply to some messages? > > Now we are in sync again, question doesn't apply any more :-) Perfect! > > > Over which commit are you working on? > > You should rebase regularly onto latest master, at least before you send a > patch. That way, you take workload from the maintainers. > And try to work with branches if you are working on more than one issue at > the > same time. > > That way, you can do conflict-less fast-forward merges to master (most of the > time), resp. the maintainer has less headaches when applying your patches. > > Tim Good points, thanks. I'm on a local branch (metalink_hack), 3 commits ahead. 1 commit is discussed in '[Bug-wget] [PATCH] Support metalink:file elements with a "path/file" format'. Just to recap, I'm studying the code, what you have lifted is a serious matter. 2 commits are under this subject (let me know if I need to attach them again + the tests). I stay tuned for your considerations about the SIGSEGV. Matthew -- Matthew White <[email protected]>
pgp3L_VmnALzx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
