Re: [hackers] [quark] http: fix default index serving

From: Laslo Hunhold <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 21:45:37 +0100

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:12:30 +0100
Quentin Rameau <> 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


Received on Sun Jan 24 2021 - 21:45:37 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Jan 24 2021 - 21:48:39 CET