Greetings !
What's the point of all this if you are treating others who try to participate 
this way ?
I have never seen such lack of tact.
This sucks.

On 19-01-22 08:15:20, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> > These patches fix all errors and warnings I found when building with lots of
> > compiler warning flags enabled, and running tools like cppcheck and 
> > valgrind.
> > There's lots of type and const correctness fixes, conflicting variable 
> > names,
> > a couple of memory leaks, and stylistic stuff like reducing variable scope.
> > Also avoid linking with libm and make building on OpenBSD a bit more
> > straightforward.
> 
> First point, why do you think we care about what your linter says? If it
> gives false positives send patches to the developers of your linter.
> 
> > Oliver Galvin (24):
> >   add gitignore
> 
> Why do you think we want a gitignore?. Suckless projects don't use
> .gitignore files. If you want to ignore files you can do it locally
> using .git/info/exclude
> 
> >   avoid unnecessarily checking if an unsigned variable is < 0, fixes
> >     cppcheck warnings
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. And you modified the macro ISCONTROL()
> in a way that hides the difference beteween C0 control codes and C1
> control codes. It is true that the code doesn't use this difference,
> but it is additional documentation in the code.
> 
> >   Reduce variable scope where possible, fix cppcheck style warnings
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. Suckless projects always declare the
> variable at the beginning of the function.
> 
> >   use const where possible, avoid discarding const, fixes errors from
> >     -Wdiscarded-qualifiers
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck.
> 
> >   avoid warnings from -Wunused-parameter
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck.
> 
> >   fix warnings from -Wimplicit-fallthrough
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. And you are modifying the behaviour of st!!!!.
> How do you think that you can put random breaks and you are not going to
> break the code?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> >   fix warning from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck.
> 
> >   fix warnings from -Wsign-compare and -Wtype-limits. also make sure we
> >     use size_t for len variables
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. 
> 
> >   avoid redundant declaration and old-style function definition
> 
> -extern char *argv0;
> +static char *argv0;
> 
> Do you understand what you are doing there?!?!??!!?. You are creating
> a different variable in every file including arg.h!!!!!!!.
> 
> >   fix -Wshadow warnings, due to variable names conflicting with global
> >     variables. also we don't need to pass global variables to xinit()
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. 
> 
> >   rename variable to fix cppcheck shadow warning, due to variable name
> >     conflicting with function
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. 
> 
> >   fix remaining cppcheck warnings: reduce scope of some variables, and
> >     avoid compiling selcheck_ when it's not used, by adding a new
> >     setting in config.h
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. Why do you think this ifdef is a good thing???
> Because we move from 45KB to 44.9KB?
> 
> >   clean up two warnings from clang about initialisation and sign
> >     comparison
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck. And now, I don't care about clang. Send
> patches to clang to remove false positives.
> 
> >   now st can build without errors/warnings with -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic
> >     enabled, enable them by default
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck and I don't care about your warnings.
> 
> >   update config.def.h with necessary changes after my previous commits.
> >     uses const everywhere and adds the SELCLEAR option
> 
> Ok, at this point I can confirm that you don't have too much experience
> in programming, it is obvious. A free advise, don't hurt yourself and
> don't use const.
> 
> >   avoid leaking memory when xrealloc/xstrdup fail, by freeing memory
> >     before die()
> 
> I don't care about cppcheck and at this moment I don't care about valgrind.
> There isn't any memory leak, all the memory of the process is freed at
> the end of the process.
> 
> >   use EXIT_SUCCESS/FAILURE
> 
> Please, don't submit style patches. St is a portable posix program, and in
> the posix enviroment the exit status is properly defined and the use of 0
> and 1 is correct.
> 
> >   use compiler attribute to check die() parameters, and fix relevant
> >     warning from clang
> 
> Over my dead body. Learn to use C, please don't use GNU extensions. At this
> moment st can be compiled with any c99 compliant compiler: gcc, clang, pcc,
> lcc, tcc ...
> 
> >   improve type and const correctness by using more correct types. fixes
> >     a bunch of -Wcast-qual warnings
> 
> Your patch is not correct, rejected.
> 
> >   use EXIT_FAILURE/SUCCESS on exit
> 
> At least you should learn to squash commits before sending them to any
> open source project. That's a pity that the mail history cannot be
> rewritten. Any recruiter that will search for your name in the future
> will discover this shame of patchset. Second free advise, before
> doing things try to learn from more experienced guys.
> 
> >   avoid unnecessarily linking to the math library, and detect openbsd
> >     automatically in makefile
> 
> Over my dead body!!!!!!!, what the fuck are you thinking???. Only the part
> of removing -m is good. You should learn to use POSIX Makefiles. At this
> moment st can be compiled using any POSIX Make: GNU make, BSD make, Solaris
> make, AIX make ...
> 
> >   fix memory leak - destroy patterns in xloadfont
> 
> Uhmmm, I have to take a deeper look to this patch, it seems correct.
> Congratulation, this patch makes a bit of sense!
> 
> >   stylistic stuff: Tidy up indentation, small fixes to comments, etc.
> 
> We don't accept style changes.
> 
> >   link with librt on non-openbsd systems, I forgot to uncomment
> 
> Learn to rebase.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 

Reply via email to