Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> I believe this patch is an update to the table_funcs contrib module.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I spent 2 minutes looking. It has no Makefile and no comments. It
>> doesn't use our code conventions either. At that stage I stopped looking.
>>
>> The author needs to spend some time looking at the developer
>> documentation and perusing the lists to see what our requirements are if
>> he wants to be taken seriously. Also, he needs to understand that the
>> best way to go about such a project is to float ideas first, code later,
>> not the other way around.
>>
>
> Woah there silver! Read the persons first post. He updated an existing
> module to fit *his* needs. He then, instead of whining to the lists
> about a missing feature, implemented what *he* needed.
>
That might be what he said, but maybe you need to go and actually
compare this with the contrib module.
And he did whine that nobody was responding to his posts. :-)
> It also appears that he fixed a few bugs *and* increased the usability
> of the module. He then gave that code back. I say bravo and thanks for
> the patch.
>
Again, he said so, but there if there are bugs they should be fixed
quite separately from any new feature. Bug fixes we can include in this
release and backport if necessary, and he should post patches for those
ASAP.
I'm not saying "no thanks" to his code, although we almost certainly
don't want the feature in anything like this form. I am saying that if
he wants the code to be considered for inclusion, he needs to follow
processes and meet standards.
cheers
andrew
