not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this? On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked > hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch > the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream > developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've > done the work for them... ;] > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:39:16 -0400 "Eric Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked > hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch > the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream > developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've > done the work for them... ;] > I'm beginning to suspect Eric and Chris are the same person. Prove they aren't - show evidence of them independently in the same room at the same time ;) (and being a mid-stream developer, I know *I* like working patches more than 'fix your junk, it broke' reports) -- [email protected] mailing list
