Andy Armstrong andy at
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,

More information about the mailing list