On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:12:30 +0100
Quentin Rameau <quinq_AT_fifth.space> 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
Laslo
[0]:
https://freshbsd.org/search?q=heavily+based+on&project%5B%5D=openbsd&sort=commit_date
[1]:
https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/a4ea7cbe676adffd1dbd98b2bb7f68591b24d46c.html
[2]:
https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/deeec27c56d8f5049abac0dad3782f5daf95a1a3.html
[3]:
https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/8afc6416647585ec2695d57eee7c226216e4111c.html
[4]:
https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/67c29aaba8a8194685677586338688e82c619e93.html
[5]:
https://git.suckless.org/quark/commit/c6a9055e5a30be570e30da8d216c39662c3a3f99.html
Received on Sun Jan 24 2021 - 21:45:37 CET