On 24 May 2010 05:11, Omer Zak w...@zak.co.il wrote:
2. Is anyone else in favor of forking the Net-SNMP project over the
comments issue?
If you wish to fork off a separate project based on the current
Net-SNMP code - you are, of course, perfectly free to do so.
In many ways, I would welcome
Thank you for your time in responding to my question; at our company,
we believe in heavily documenting all code before it can be accepted
(if that means that people need to work late to get it in, they do
^_^). One of the things that we've found is that what is easy and
obvious today is crazy
On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:01:49 -0400, Doug Manley doug.man...@gmail.com
said:
DM Thank you for your time in responding to my question; at our company,
DM we believe in heavily documenting all code before it can be accepted
DM (if that means that people need to work late to get it in, they do
DM
On 22 May 2010 00:04, Doug Manley doug.man...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently realized that a patch that I submitted a year or two ago
had been stripped of all of its comments (and thus a good deal of its
usefulness). Granted, my fix (to prevent infinite looping) was kept,
but all of the
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 07:11:02AM +0300, Omer Zak wrote:
2. Is anyone else in favor of forking the Net-SNMP project over the
comments issue?
Forking a major project over *comments*?
--
Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 694-0494
st...@unixwiz.net | Orange County,
In view of the recent discussion about stripping comments off patches:
1. One of the issues is the fact that comments starting with // (rather
than enclosed by /* . . . */) are stripped off, rather than converted
from the first into the second.
The reason behind this is valid, although I doubt
On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 21:14 -0700, Steve Friedl wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 07:11:02AM +0300, Omer Zak wrote:
2. Is anyone else in favor of forking the Net-SNMP project over the
comments issue?
Forking a major project over *comments*?
Yes.
The comments situation in Net-SNMP is grave.
Omer Zakwrote wrote:
Now I am flabbergasted that anything leading toward such documentation
has been censored from Net-SNMP commits.
Like Wes said: we don't censor useful, properly formatted comments.
+Thomas
--
Hi, team!
I've submitted numerous patches to the net-snmp project for errors so
esoteric that it took days to find and understand them.
In my painful searches through the commentless code, I built up an
understanding of the necessary components and added in many comments
to help steer people in
On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:04:43 -0400
Doug Manley doug.man...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, team!
I've submitted numerous patches to the net-snmp project for errors so
esoteric that it took days to find and understand them.
In my painful searches through the commentless code, I built up an
On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:04:43 -0400, Doug Manley doug.man...@gmail.com
said:
DM I've submitted numerous patches to the net-snmp project for errors so
DM esoteric that it took days to find and understand them.
I'd have to go back and chase the details to figure out who committed
the patch, why
Oh, this explains why I was forced to spend days (elapsed time weeks)
understanding the Net-SNMP agent code, which I need to modify in order
to implement an audit log feature.
AARRRH!!
A while ago, I posted to the Net-SNMP users mailing list a question
about a guide to the source
12 matches
Mail list logo
