On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:12:30 +0100 Quentin Rameau <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Quentin, > I would prefer that you keep rightful authors of patches instead of > changing the style a bit and committing in your own name. > This isn't respectful of contributors and seems to be a recurring > issue with you. > > If you want to change the style, you can discuss it with the authors, > and amend the commit before pushing instead of doing that. > > I would prefer that you revert the commit, and do it properly (which > would be good as it would also be explained in the development > history). as you know I mean neither disrespect nor offense and strictly add even one-time-contributors to the LICENSEs of my projects, because I believe in proper attribution. The way I handled the application of patches is probably due to the fact that I read a lot of OpenBSD-commits. To give you an insight, look at [0], on how frequent they "credit" external patches in the commit messages. However, I see and agree with your point and have reverted and split up the commits[1][2][3][4] and updated the license[5]. The main reason for this split is that git distinguishes between committer and author, a feature CVS doesn't have and which is likely the reason they choose the form, and it's good to have a distinctive history with clear authorship of patches and credit, as you also stated as your preference. > > The http_prepare_response()-function is pretty messy, especially in > > regard to stale data, which this bug is also based on. I'm working > > on making it more resilient by splitting the discrete sub-problems > > into separate functions. > > Yes, but that's also partly due to the style, these are no > “fallthrough” cases, there are early returns, and it's easier to read > them as such instead of putting them into if-then-else blocks > everywhere. This is a style/code-readability-matter indeed, however, I also added the change to the part regarding mime-type-handling, which is not style. As an afterthought, though, it makes more sense to do that in a separate commit, which I did now. Anyways, if I do something wrong or something bothers you, please let me know right then so I can have a chance to correct this. Otherwise, it's likely I won't notice. If you call it "recurrent", it basically implies an ill intent, which I don't have at all. With best regards Laslo [0]:https://freshbsd.org/search?q=heavily+based+on&project%5B%5D=openbsd&sort=commit_date [1]:https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/a4ea7cbe676adffd1dbd98b2bb7f68591b24d46c.html [2]:https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/deeec27c56d8f5049abac0dad3782f5daf95a1a3.html [3]:https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/8afc6416647585ec2695d57eee7c226216e4111c.html [4]:https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/67c29aaba8a8194685677586338688e82c619e93.html [5]:https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/c6a9055e5a30be570e30da8d216c39662c3a3f99.html
