On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote: > Note too that when you leave that long, it is customary to leave an > autoresponder.
Not everybody cares to publish their vacation plans for everybody in the world (including potential burglars) to see. > That does not explain why you have yet to answer my mail asking nicely if > you would care to add a pointer to my patches to a file in your > distribution, or your web page (that was after you said you weren't > interested in including them, which I'll repeat is ok, I never got offended > by that) By policy, we do not advertise any third-party patches. We can not accept such liability. There are many third-party patches, and it is the responsibility of their authors If you feel "brushed-off", that is your problem. > So no, it's not "a long series of patches which have the notion of of > restricting a users' file naming access..." Yes it is. Your patch is merely one of perhaps dozens such patches by many people (myself included), with similar purpose, which have been posted on the lists or newsgroups, emailed to me as suggestions, or even written by me for someone. I even posted a "if you want to do something like this, here is the type of this you should do in your patch" message. I am sorry if you felt that you had an original idea that nobody had thought of before. You didn't. Nor were you the most recent person in the series. You were just one of many. > > The first such patch was written by me over 10 years > > ago, and I have written several others for people who asked me nicely. > 1) it wasn't in the distribution, so not very useful I did not want to support any of those patches, and I do not incorporate *any* patches which I do not want to support. The new code in imap-2002 is something that I decided can be supported. > 3) you made no mention of that when I Emailed you. Your answer amounted to > "thank you for your submission, I'm not interested in including or > bundling these patches, and I'm not interesting in linking to them or > mentioning them in my documentation" I did not incorporate your patch. I wrote new code. The fact that it does something similar is covered in the free-fork license: (5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction; Even when I reject a patch, I keep notes about the type of functionality that people write patches to implement. I use these notes (or "suggestion box" if you prefer) to guide me when I implement new functionalities. As it so happens, I recently completed a security project in imap-2002, and thus all security-related suggestions were considered during that development cycle. > The last two people I talked to about submitting patches to you told me both > "good luck". Coincidence? I accept only a small number of non-bugfix related patches. Some people would call that "quality control." -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
