Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:26:24PM +0500, ???????? ?????????????? wrote: > it would be easiest, but it is not required. > as Steffan Karger wrote "Could you please include such descriptions in > future patches?"
Well, a proper commit message *is* required.
So, instead of us having do your work (of providing a proper commit message),
and then complaining that this is taking a bit longer (because it's extra
work) - what about "re-sending the patch with a proper commit message"
instead?
I have a bunch of work to do, and "make me do more work and then complain
that I'm slow doing it" is a very trusted way to get moved all the way
DOWN on my priority list. Like, "I might think about this next May".
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
