Kurt, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Kurt Werle wrote:
> 1. > JoeBlow, > Thanks for submitting the patch. It looks interesting, and I think we > could use it. Please put together a test case and polish points a and b > a little and we'll roll it in. Requests for test cases go out in response to any patch more than a few lines long. > 2. > JoeBlow, > Thanks for submitting the patch. I couldn't get it to work OR I don't > see the point OR This is not the direction we're headed. The patch did not initially include a description of its use cases. The description eventually was eventually posted to the list. Since no one is actively developing this package, there is no "direction" or than "don't introduce bugs". My apologies if I haven't made this blatantly clear by now. > 3. > > You seem to have chosed #3, which is ignore Joe. As near as I can tell, > that's the most destructive one. If that expectation paints me as being > "unexperienced with open source > development", I'm glad I've chosen the right projects to contribute to. Why is it all about me? I am one of many maintaining this package as a _volunteer_, Kurt. No one is paying me to work on this package, I simply endeavour to keep it running smoothly enough that it doesn't cause problems for my company's software. And no, the patch was not ignored. As I've mentioned repeatedly, I have neither the time nor inclination to integrate something that large without both regression tests and unit tests the new code which the patch includes. The recent patch from Andrew which was pointed out to start this discussion _is_ something of use to me and my company, thus I could take the time to participate on its development and integration. -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
