Re: [Openvpn-devel] New generic buildsystem: lzo enabled or disabled by default?

[Samuli S. <sa...@op...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Alon,

Are you saying that there's no way you can generate a series of fixes
(=patches) that apply on top of your previous patches? Or, if the fixes
are fairly trivial, you could provide a diff of the old and new trees
and explain what changes are included. Then the new tree could be pulled
as-is.

- -- 
Samuli Seppänen
Community Manager
OpenVPN Technologies, Inc

irc freenode net: mattock

> No.
> Please don't take the patches from the mailing list.
> As I explicitly requested in the past *SEVERAL* times.
>
> I've done minor fixups in my repository.
> As you see my work is in good quality and without comments, issues I
> fixed needs to be fixed in tree as well.
>
> As I requested this approach several times and got no rejection I
> assumed this is acceptable.
>
> This is a *COMPLETE* show stopper.
>
> If you insist in doing that this way I will resend the patch series to
the list.
>
> Alon.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, David Sommerseth
> <ope...@to...> wrote:
> On 22/03/12 12:47, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM, David Sommerseth
> >>> <ope...@to...> wrote:
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19/03/12 16:16, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >>>>> The only component that is in question is lzo. I still think this
> >>>>> is packager responsibility, not sure why this is an exception. But
> >>>>> if it will make people happy, I will enable lzo by default. All
> >>>>> the other components are optional by they nature, and again it is
> >>>>> up to packager to decide what good for his configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alon,
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, based on the discussion on this thread, it makes sense to then
> >>>> flip LZO to be enabled by default.
> >>>>
> >>>> No need to hurry with any patches, as I can add such a patch on top
> >>>> of everything when the merging is completed. The patch will be
> >>>> submitted to the mailing list when it's ready to be implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, great. I will modify the branch with this (rebase) so it won't
> >>> create additional noise. So you be able to do a clean pull with
> >>> complete feature set.
>
> No, I will take this change as an additional patch - as I stated in my
> previous response. I don't want to base such changes on patches which
> are already reviewed and ACKed. That invalidates the work queue I'm on
> already. I'm taking patches from the mailing list, that works very well
> in my workflow - and it gives a good chance of providing the Acked-by
> statements in the git log.
>
>
> kind regards,
>
> David Sommerseth
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk9scUIACgkQwp2X7RmNIqOJXgCeIg5I9bFheKZAsOlVu+X2tt+d
YZQAnA2OE75kTWbrszdeni1jnc5ESIlg
=kb/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----