Re: [PATCH] New package: IPTraffic 0.8.2

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4210 bytes --]

Hello Frank,

We have a policy to not take public conversations private:

  https://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/contact

It is under "Never make a public conversation private” and it is there because sometimes mail user agents do this because of bad UI, and sometimes there are other reasons.

-Michael

> On 25 Jan 2021, at 20:58, Frank Mainz <frank(a)cybermainzel.de> wrote:
> 
> Michael,
> I had not answered without reason only privately.
> Throw away the AddOn. Forget it.
> 
> unfortunately you can't unsubscribe with a simple "unsubscibe".
> 
> What is a spam filter for.
> 
> Am Montag, den 25.01.2021, 20:48 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer:
>> Hello Frank,
>> 
>>> On 25 Jan 2021, at 20:22, Frank Mainz <frank(a)cybermainzel.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am Montag, den 25.01.2021, 20:05 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer:
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your email, but it didn’t answer any of my
>>>> questions.
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn’t aware of the wiki pages, but I had a look at it.
>>>> 
>>>> The questions from my previous email remain though. I do not
>>>> think a
>>>> single one was answered.
>>> 
>>> That is not my problem.
>> 
>> Okay, I am sorry, but I would have to vote to reject this patch then.
>> 
>> It is very important that we review all code that is going into the
>> distribution and that we have a reason that it is there. Code that is
>> redundant, not needed and unmaintained is a potential security
>> problem. I am sure this is very easy to understand.
>> 
>> Also, you can read here what it takes to get your patches into the
>> distribution:
>> 
>>  https://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/submit-patches
>> 
>> This is not there for our own entertainment. It is a tested and tuned
>> process which guarantees that IPFire is a product of very high
>> quality.
>> 
>>>>> On 25 Jan 2021, at 19:51, Frank Mainz <frank(a)cybermainzel.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Michael,
>>>>> 
>>>>> look in the WIKI and you know what is displayed. Otherwise, the
>>>>> traffic
>>>>> of individual IP addresses is logged with the help of entries
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> CUSTOM chains and graphically prepared.
>>>> 
>>>> The CUSTOM* chains can’t be touched by any programs that come
>>>> with
>>>> the distributions. They exist for users to add any custom rules
>>>> and
>>>> they are under full control by the user only.
>>> 
>>> Then it does fit.
>> 
>> No, it doesn’t, because you are not the user of all those firewalls.
>> 
>> Every chain has a defined purpose, and you are using it for something
>> it isn’t designed for and it will break setups.
>> 
>>>>> https://wiki.ipfire.org/addons/iptraffic-playground
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings Frank
>>>>> 
>>>>> PS: Fullquote removed
>>>> 
>>>> Why? I don’t recommend doing this because it removes context from
>>>> the
>>>> conversation.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> -Michael
>>> 
>>> Then be careful next time not to quote >100 lines of source code.
>>> How
>>> this is supposed to preserve context is beyond me.
>> 
>> Because we write comments into the code. And we normally try to
>> answer other people’s questions.
>> 
>> Do not forget that many people are reading this list and they do not
>> devote a lot of time to get themselves involved in everything.
>> Therefore things have to be understood at a quick glance.
>> 
>>> But do what you want. Exactly because of such reactions I didn't
>>> want
>>> to port the AddOn for IPFire.
>> 
>> I have absolutely no idea why you are reacting like this. The process
>> is clear and I am here to make IPFire as good as I can possibly do.
>> 
>> I have simply asked what your code is and what it does. You seem to
>> not want to answer those questions and why is unfortunately beyond
>> me.
>> 
>>> Have a nice life. I am out.
>> 
>> Under those circumstances I must say that I find it very
>> disappointing that you have wasted my time and Matthias’ time, too. I
>> have re-read my email and I do not see why this might have caused any
>> offence.
>> 
>> I assume that nobody else wants to push this forward any more and
>> maintain this code?
>> 
>> -Michael
>