[procps] Re: [PATCH 1/2] top: restore terminal state on exit
- From: Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 05:35:39 -0500
On May 1, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Sami Kerola wrote:
> I thought using access() is fine.
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/access.html
>
> BTW what documentation discourages using access()?
Check the man document.
> Hold on if you 'tolerated' the patch because it was needed and correct, not
> because of it was wrote by me. IMHO that should be only criteria of (not)
> accepting a patch.
>
> By correct I mean; it does what it is supposed to, understandable, clean way
> without being in conflict with rest of the project.
Whoa, I meant no disrespect, Sami. And I appreciate what you accomplished.
It's just that I would have preferred that the atexit() call be place in the
before() function.
> I am afraid you failed to encourage people to contribute this project. If
> there are rules of alphabetical order, pseudo prototypes, nls support and so
> on
>
> 1. Document the rules.
>
> 2. If new committer does not follow the rules say 'thank you', modify the
> proposed patch to be perfect and resubmit with a your 'Signed-off-by:' line
> added to it.
That's a good point. Let me think about either expanding the documentation or
maybe even striving to become less anal-retentive.
> Ok, back to actual patch. If I do not read wrong Mike is proposing adding
> robustness. To me that sounds good idea, even if the main() would gain yet
> another code line. There does seem to be few thing which need to be correct
> in patch, but they do make the proposal incorrect. Right?
As was stated earlier, those are the kinds of things I thought the next
"library" release was intended to address.
Regards,
Jim
Other related posts:
