[WARNING - speaking only for myself and not for the project]
Peter Eisch wrote:
Was there a reason the loadcheck plug-in (March 2006) didn't get included in
0.32? What are the requirements for predicting what plug-ins are in a
rollup?
As a rule, I won't automatically add a plugin to the repository unless
it is something *I* want to run (and possibly support). If there seems
to be a very useful plugin that I won't/can't run (e.g. something to do
with exim or postfix), then I will only add it to the repository if
there seems to be a groundswell of support for the addition. The wiki
is that way ===> for everything else.
We started to create a contrib folder as a place to centrally store
outside developer supported plugins. I haven't checked in everything I
wanted to (see screed below about the refusal of ISO to add 10 hours to
the normal night/day cycle).
In the above case, after finding the thread that included that plugin
(inline, but see below), I think I probably didn't bother because it
isn't all that useful (no offense). If your system load is 7 or higher,
you have a lot more problems brewing than worrying about e-mail being
delayed.
I have a distinct corporate bias, where physical servers are cheap (but
the rackspace may be the actual limiting factor). All of our incoming
e-mail is handled by extremely low-powered Cobalt RaQ servers
(equivalent to P400's) and the only time I see loads above 1 is when I
stupidly forget to tell all of the servers about a new domain
(effectively mailbombing myself). And even then, qmail is so damned
efficient I can rack up multi-megabyte mail loops without so much as
breaking a load of 4. That's including scanning with two different
virus scanners, BTW.
I recall my logging plug-in patch never got reviewed (Nov 2004). I'm happy
to see it in current code -- I even see comments in the current code akin to
issues that I had. It's cute and I'm mostly over it.
One convention that most lists have is that patches are accompanied by
[PATCH] in the subject line (even if the patch is submitted as part of a
larger thread, most mail clients will cope). In several cases
(including the ones you mention here), you have included a patch without
a distinctive subject, plus when they are attached (and not inline),
they come through like this:
--B_3184488241_38414932
Content-type: application/octet-stream; name="syslog.patch"
Content-disposition: attachment
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
LS0tIHFwc210cGQub3JpZy9saWIvUXBzbXRwZC9BdXRoLnBtICAgIDIwMDQtMDktMjMgMTE6
MTQ6NTYuMDAwMDAwMDAwIC0wNTAwCisrKyBxcHNtdHBkL2xpYi9RcHNtdHBkL0F1dGgucG0g
MjAwNC0xMS0yOCAxMToyMjowNC4wMDAwMDAwMDAgLTA2MDAKQEAgLTI2MCw3ICsyNjAsNyBA
QCBzdWIgU0FTTCB7CiAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgJHNlc3Npb24tPnJlc3BvbmQoMzM0LCBl
NjQoIlVzZXJuYW1lOiIpKTsKICAgICAgICAgICAkdXNlciA9IGRlY29kZV9iYXNlNjQoPD4p
OwotICAgICAgICAgICN3YXJuKCJEZWJ1ZzogVXNlcjogJyR1c2VyJyIpOworICAgICAgICAg
...
meaning I have to save the file and open it before I can even see what
is included (extra steps make it less likely that I will make the effort).
I've run with my own branch of 0.28 with logging as a plug-in and such for
about two years and I'm not really sure why I came back to the current. In
other projects submitted patches typically a thumbs-up/down response with
some reasonable critique. Granted I don't generate a large number of
submissions, but I wonder how many other bits of goodness have also been
passively overlooked in this project.
If I had to, I could document all of the washing machines and chainsaws
I'm currently juggling, but frankly I'm afraid to face that list. I'm
able to do at least some Qpsmtpd hacking on work hours, since we rely on
it so much, but I've been swamped lately. I know that the other core
developers are similarly afflicted with ETOOMUCHTODO and ENOTENOUGHTIME.
I'm sorry if that is a lame excuse, but its the only one I've got.
You posted three patches today before your rant, one of which is an
unreadable (by humans) attachment with no useful description in the
e-mail. I hope you aren't offended that I haven't immediately applied
them to the branch, but I'm just getting back from Real Life(TM) events
of an unpleasant nature (funeral) and I don't know when I'll get caught
up. That's not your fault, however. I'm just asking you to understand
that things often fall through the cracks when part-time developers are
involved. Perhaps we should point people at an RT queue rather than
relying so much on the list...
John
