12 Sep
2013
12 Sep
'13
11:12 a.m.
Holger,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther
<holger(a)freyther.de> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:34:54AM +0400, Alexander
Chemeris wrote:
We're trying to improve our patches in a reasonable time. But
"reasonable time" depends on our priorities and when we could find the
time to fix things. If the amount of effort is more than the value of
the patch, it'll take a lot of time before the get to fixing it. I
hope you understand that.
Regarding the nanoBTS init code, I explicitly stated, that this is a
hack which I found useful for myself and want to share with the
community. I'm glad if it helps someone, but I don't care if it's
included into master or not. OTOH, black list, SMPP DB and ACC patches
are ones which we actually use in one or another case, and thus we
would appreciate to see them in master.
We intend to finish the ACC patch, but it's
of lower priority for us
(just like the SMPP DB patch for you). I would appreciate if you
review patches on their own merits.
Dear Alexander,
it is not a question of priority. When I review a patch and I find
issues (like with the ACC patch, or the nanoBTS init code), I
expect to get a follow up patch within reasonable time.
In the past this has not happened, or worse, there was an open
refusal to increase the quality of the contribution.
Please sent follow-up patches in a reasonable time and I will review
and merge your changes quickly. PS: For this patch the comment is like the ACC patch.
Create a VTY
unit test that verifies that one can set/unset the policy. Jacob
has posted plenty of examples recently.
Thanks for the comment we'll look into that.
PS It would be very helpful if you put together a (short) list of
things to check before submitting a patch for inclusion to the master.
It'll save a lot of time and nerves for everyone.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru