On 12.02.2014 15:32, Michael Jones wrote: > Jurgen, > > I typically put these in bugzilla with an explanation. That is where people > look for patches before they are part of the source tree. As far as I can > tell, it is the only way patches become part of the code base.
Indeed, Bugzilla is the preferred place for patch submission. Besides discussion/collaboration forum, Bugzilla provides searchable database. Patches and contributions is still available for but is depreciated. Ref: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ecos/intouch.html . eCos Bugzilla shall also forward the bug to patches mailing list if you select /Patches and contributions/ component. Ilija > Mike > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:08 AM, Lambrecht Jürgen <j.lambre...@televic.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I found a bug and fixed it, so I don't know if I need to use bugzilla >> for that? >> In attach the patch. >> >> file: net/common/current/src/dhcp_prot.c >> >> According to RFC 2131 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2131.html): "The >> DHCPREQUEST message contains the same 'xid' as the DHCPOFFER message." >> So in a DHCP DORA cycle (Discover-Offer-Request-Acknowledge) the same >> transaction ID should be used ('xid' in C code). >> We never had problems with that, but now we have a strict customer.. >> >> Kind regards, >> Jürgen >> >> -- >> Jürgen Lambrecht >> R&D Associate >> Mobile: +32 499 644 531 >> Tel: +32 (0)51 303045 Fax: +32 (0)51 310670 >> http://www.televic-rail.com >> Televic Rail NV - Leo Bekaertlaan 1 - 8870 Izegem - Belgium >> Company number 0825.539.581 - RPR Kortrijk >> >> <dhcp_prot.patch>
