On Monday, 12 Feb 2018 10:06 AM -0500, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:41:19PM -0000, Andy Hawkins wrote:
>> In article <20180212104746.gb9...@gpm.stappers.nl>, Geert Stappers wrote:
>> > FWIW  I'm formatting the patch so it be `git am`
>> } FWIW  I'm formatting the patch so it can be `git am` processed
>> Is this the 'correct' way to do it?
>> I couldn't really find any information on how to contribute to dnsmasq.
>  (-:
> Sending patches that "git apply-mail" can handle, brings often success.
> I think it is because project owner doesn't need to spend
> brain power on creating a commit message, pasting in authors name.
>> > It will have Andy's name, but no sign-off.
>> Is that something I need to do?
> If you agree with it.  I, who reformatted the patch and wrote
> a commit message, am in no postition to sign-off with Andy's name.
> Sending an email in his name already feels wrong ...
> My previous message
>> > FWIW  I'm formatting the patch so it can be `git am` processed
>> > It will have Andy's name, but no sign-off.
> in other words:
>|Yes, dnsmasq in nice software. I do use it, I do want to contribute.
>|I do follow the mailinglist. I have seen a patch on the mailinglist.
>|Also seen that it will take Simon Kelley more then needed effort
>|to be applied to the git repository. So I announced the reformatting
>|and use (abuse?) of Andy's name in the upcoming e-mail.

I know it's fun to come up with a patch to fix a supposed problem with
a widely-employed piece of software, but stop for a minute and think
about what you're attempting to "achieve".

If successful, you will add just another piece of bloat (that is
subject to error and will have to be tested) to dnsmasq to address a
problem that is not in fact dnsmasq's, but a misconfiguration problem
at the *user's* end.

Kurt has already told you how to fix this.  It's a trivial fix to your
editor's configuration that you should be doing *anyway* (for reasons
that Kurt has already indicated).  I find it quite amazing that one
can devote this much effort to "solve" a problem in dnsmasq that you
can (and should) fix on your end.

I have no idea what Simon's attitude to all this it, but *I* want to
be put on record as being in *complete* agreement with Kurt on how to
"fix" this (and that's not a patch to dnsmasq).


Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to