andy at hexten.net
Wed Mar 1 13:13:50 GMT 2006
On 1 Mar 2006, at 13:06, Jacqui Caren wrote:
> I would have though so - feed the changes back to the author but if
> they do not accept them (they have the right to refuse) then you
> have to
> either fork or keep a patch & apply as required.
> We usually feed changes back to the author having created test
> cases for
> before and after, making sure the change is minimum reqd and has no
> side effects. It can take a while to do this and somethimes takes
> over a
> month to get a positive response, so patience is reqd :-)
The problem with keeping the change to the minimum required in this
case is that apart from a bit of boiler plate the module just
implements a fairly simple algorithm - and it's the algorithm that
doesn't scale. So most of it will have to change.
> We currently have four such modules that have elicited negative of
> no response from the author. We keep patches for all of them.
Uh huh. Well I'll just keep working on it and if I get something
decisively better I'll see what happens, thanks :)
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
More information about the london.pm