On 13/02/18 01:31, Will Parsons wrote:
> 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).

FWIW, Simon's attitude is that if the code to ignore common editor
droppings didn't already exist in dnsmasq, then we could argue about
whether it was a good idea. Since it does, and has done for a long time,
and isn't going to be removed (for backward compatibility reasons, if no
other) then having that argument is a bit pointless.

Andy appears to have found a bug, wherein this behaviour is clearly
intended to happen, and doesn't, because I misunderstood the inotify
API. Fixing that is a no-brainer.

I'm touched by all the effort that's gone into making a suitable patch
whilst I've been elsewhere. For the record, anything that I can feed to
"git apply" is fine. I don't care too much about making it really,
really easy to apply, since that makes me lazy, and I try to look at,
and think about, every patch that I apply.



Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to