From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Bitsch To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Aw: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with one 'add' click Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 20:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2329816462915189245==" List-Id: --===============2329816462915189245== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Mai 2019 um 00:27 Uhr > Von: "Michael Tremer" > An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" , florian.bu= ehrle(a)ipfire.org > Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with one 'add'= click > > Hi, >=20 > > On 17 May 2019, at 23:21, Bernhard Bitsch wrot= e: > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > sorry if I were not exact enough. I am working with a matter of urgency o= n the DHCP config problem and surely will contact Florian, if I've found the = error and a real fix for it. >=20 > No need to contact him directly. That is what this list is for. >=20 That is not he point. Maybe it is better to work directly together. > > My post was just a heads up about this work. The rewriting will be the se= cond step, after bug elimination. The purpose should be to faciliate future b= ug fixes. >=20 > I do not think that it makes any sense to rewrite this CGI file. We are goi= ng to get rid of the whole web UI in IPFire 3 and there are no new features t= o expect in the DHCP area that it makes sense to tidy up to much. I am not ad= vocating to have messy code here, but it works, and it easily breaks if you t= ouch something. >=20 When will IPFire 3 come? How should we find and correct errors in the meantim= e?=20 About breaking by touching this messy code, I agree with you. But if the mess= remains, the probability of importing new errors by "bug fixes" increases. J= ust my opinion. > > My idea for quick inclusion of fix: > > Florian is working on it, therefore I'll discuss possible solutions with = him. He will commit these to the git repo, based on the actual dhcp.cgi file. >=20 > Why don=E2=80=99t you say it here what you have found? >=20 Because I haven't found the error, yet. > > When I am finished with the rewrite (including the error fix) I'll publis= h it either here in the devel list or in git or both. > > Is this ok? >=20 > That really depends on what you want to achieve here. If you are sending in= patches that clean up code but do not change any behaviour you should collec= t them in a git branch and send that branch as a patchset. Bug fixes should b= e sent separately if it makes sense. >=20 Okay, that is the way I thought of. At the moment Florian fixes the actual e= rror in the existing code. Independend of that I represent the rewrite in git= and/or devel list. > If you plan to change any behaviour of the CGI file, that is a matter open = for discussion first and then work should start. >=20 When is this discussed? I made a suggestion of changes of behaviour; yet: - Adding a new fixed lease adds this directly, without having to click a seco= nd time. - Adding a dynamic lease to the fixed leases should work in two steps: first = the data from dynamic leases is copied to the edit fields, user can change an= d complete the definition and adds this by clicking "add". A check for disjun= ction of sets of fixed and dynamic leases would be possible. - Bernhard=20 > Hope this makes sense. >=20 > -Michael >=20 > > Best, > > Bernhard > >=20 > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Mai 2019 um 21:18 Uhr > >> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >> An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > >> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" , florian= .buehrle(a)ipfire.org > >> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with one 'a= dd' click > >>=20 > >> Hi, > >>=20 > >> This bug is currently assigned to Florian, because I have asked him to h= ave a look at it. > >>=20 > >> I do not really care who is working on this, but I would like everyone t= o work together on it. > >>=20 > >> I would also like to stress that we have urgent fixes for loads of Intel= processors in Core Update 132 and I think that this problem should also be f= ixed in this update. So, please work on this with a matter of urgency. > >>=20 > >> Best, > >> -Michael > >>=20 > >>> On 17 May 2019, at 11:58, Bernhard Bitsch wr= ote: > >>>=20 > >>> Hello, > >>>=20 > >>> just some news about this topic. > >>>=20 > >>> - Michael was right to refuse my quick and dirty patch. It did not real= ly solve the problem, maybe it introduced some new problems. Sorry for my qui= ck and dirty reaction. > >>>=20 > >>> - I wasn't satisfied with the situation being. The problem exists furth= ermore and isn't easy solved. Therefore I started a review and commenting for= my own. With some effort I think I've located the main error ( see my short = post in bugzilla ). > >>>=20 > >>> Thus, you will read again from me about solutions for Bug #12050. > >>> My current state is as follows: > >>> I've added a bunch of comments for understanding the program. > >>> The sort algorithm for fixed leases ( maybe dynamic leases also ) shoul= d and can be optimised. > >>> The operations "add new fixed lease", "edit existing fixed lease", "add= dynamic lease to fixed leases" must be verified and corrected. > >>>=20 > >>> Proposal for behaviour: > >>> "add new fixed lease" : add a new entry with parameters to fixed leases= list, sort according the existing order. It should not be necessary to edit = it first. > >>> "edit existing fixed lease": move parameters of selected entry to edit = box. Highlight edited entry at his place ( if entry #12 should be edited, row= #12 is highlighted ). Change entry with new paramters, sort. > >>> "add dynamic lease to fixed lease": move values of dynamic lease to edi= t box. Editing is mandatory! We should not merge sets of fixed and dynamic le= ases. Add new entry as new fixed lease with changed parameters, sort. > >>>=20 > >>> When I've succeeded in implementing these topics, I'll post the result. > >>> Because of the number of changes in source ( comments, enhancements for= readability, .... ) I would suggest a commit of approved file as a whole, no= t just as single little patches. How can this be accomplished? > >>> I think little patches here and there cannot solve the problem of low m= aintainability of this file. > >>>=20 > >>> Regards, > >>> Bernhard > >>>=20 > >>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. April 2019 um 18:35 Uhr > >>>> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >>>> An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > >>>> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" > >>>> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with one = 'add' click > >>>>=20 > >>>> Hello, > >>>>=20 > >>>> I just wanted to share with the list that Bernhard has emailed me in p= rivate, telling me that he no longer wants to pursue getting this patch merge= d. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I find this whole situation very frustrating, but of course I accept h= is decision. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I guess we just have to agree that we disagree here. > >>>>=20 > >>>> Best, > >>>> -Michael > >>>>=20 > >>>>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 21:37, Bernhard Bitsch = wrote: > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. April 2019 um 16:47 Uhr > >>>>>> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >>>>>> An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > >>>>>> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with on= e 'add' click > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 13:54, Bernhard Bitsch wrote: > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> I do not want to start any discussions about the way the project do= es its work. > >>>>>>> Therefore some (hopefully) short annotations below. > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. April 2019 um 13:42 Uhr > >>>>>>>> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >>>>>>>> An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > >>>>>>>> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" > >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with = one 'add' click > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:23, Bernhard Bitsch wrote: > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. April 2019 um 11:50 Uhr > >>>>>>>>>> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >>>>>>>>>> An: "Bernhard Bitsch" > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: BeBiMa , "IPFire: Development-List" > >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases wit= h one 'add' click > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 22:49, Bernhard Bitsch wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>> some explanations from the author: > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. April 2019 um 11:31 Uhr > >>>>>>>>>>>> Von: "Michael Tremer" > >>>>>>>>>>>> An: "Matthias Fischer" > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: development(a)lists.ipfire.org, BeBiMa > >>>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases w= ith one 'add' click > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Matthias for helping out here. However, I do not get th= e patch. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no explanation about what it is meant to do. The inte= ntion already is that the lease is added in the first place. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> The intention for the patch is to include new leases at the end= with all fields defined by the admin. > >>>>>>>>>>> Up to now a new lease was added after an additional edit. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Those comments *must* be in the code. Nobody goes through thousa= nds of emails on a mailing list to find out what is actually intended in the = code. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> You're right. But knowing, there should be some more work on this= page, this wasn't my main effort for this quick and short solution. For this= special case I regarded the forum post and the bugzilla entry to be sufficie= nt documentation, for the moment. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> No. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Every commit must contain itself. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2019, at 17:41, Matthias Fischer wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: BeBiMa > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Matthias Fischer > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> html/cgi-bin/dhcp.cgi | 12 ++++++++++++ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/html/cgi-bin/dhcp.cgi b/html/cgi-bin/dhcp.cgi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> index 675d80012..ba5b54f84 100644 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/html/cgi-bin/dhcp.cgi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/html/cgi-bin/dhcp.cgi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -412,12 +412,16 @@ if ($dhcpsettings{'ACTION'} eq $Lang::t= r{'add'}.'2') { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> my $key =3D 0; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + my $szc =3D scalar(@current2); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> CHECK:foreach my $line (@current2) { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> my @temp =3D split(/\,/,$line); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if($dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} ne $key) { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> # same MAC is OK on different subnets. This test is not = complete because > >>>>>>>>>>>>> # if ip are not inside a known subnet, I don't warn. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> # Also it may be needed to put duplicate fixed lease in = their right subnet definition.. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if ((lc($dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'}) eq lc($temp[0])) &&(l= c($dhcpsettings{'FIX_ADDR'}) eq lc($temp[1]))) { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + last CHECK; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why is this needed? > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Check for existing lease. If is defined already we don= 't need to loop further. > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> foreach my $itf (@ITFs) { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> my $scoped =3D &General::IpInSubnet($dhcpsettings{'FIX_ADDR= '}, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> $netsettings{"${itf}_NETADDRESS"}, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -442,11 +446,19 @@ if ($dhcpsettings{'ACTION'} eq $Lang::t= r{'add'}.'2') { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'} =3D &Header::cleanhtml($dhcpse= ttings{'FIX_FILENAME'}); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'} =3D &Header::cleanhtml($dhcpse= ttings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'}); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if ($dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} eq '') { #add or edit ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> This block here is not indented correctly. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that the code is already very messy, but we shoul= d not make it worse either. > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> How should indention be done? By spaces, tabs? How many colums = define an indent? > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> In the patch it looks like you wrapped the block into another if= condition. So it has to be indented to make that obvious. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Maybe this generated by different editors, I used. Indention of t= he patch isn't worse than the existing indentation. Not being a final version= ( see above ) it is sufficient, in my opinion. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Do *not* submit non-final versions. There is no point in it. A pat= ch is meant to go into a final release. We do not want beta stuff in there. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Okay. Got it. I should have sent my modified dhcp.cgi because of la= ck of a working git repo on my site. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Please learn how to use git and use =E2=80=9Cgit send-email=E2=80=9D= . There is an introduction on the wiki on how to set it up and there is tons = of resources on the Internet that explain Git to you in the form of howtos an= d videos. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Sorry, I know about git. It is not the lack of knowledge, but my limi= ted equipment. You invite to donate for the project, which is very urgent, I = think. On the other hand I've tried to help with limited sources and without = monetary assistance, till now. If this isn't possible, it is okay for me. I'l= l retire to the status "consuming user". > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> The original file (and many ohters!) have an mixture of tab/spa= ce. Should we patch that step by step ( tab=3D4 ) to increase readability. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> This is not about tabs or spaces. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Sure! This mixture doesnt't matter only in case of "tab=3D4" defi= nition, which I didn't find in the docs (yet). > >>>>>>>>> I'll use this definition for further development ( and formated d= hcpi.cgi in my work copy in the neighbourhood of the change, yet ). > >>>>>>>>> This means that further patches may contain such "cosmetics", if = they are necessary to understand the code working on. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> If you insist to take this conversation down this route, then feel= free to do so. We do not have a policy that commands spaces. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> I liked you the coding style.=20 > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Especially in this file I found a messy mixture of tabs and spaces.= Therefore my statement. If we commit us to tab=3D4 these spaces can be elimi= nated. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> We inherited some code from IPCop that we did not clean up. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> So the guideline is to use the coding style used in the particular f= ile. Do not re-indent the whole file. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> If that's the opinion of the majority of the developers, live with it= . One reason of the ending of IPCop development was this rigid interpretation= of "don't touch a running system", IMHO. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> No problem. But this will produce a great number of patches. I = made these modifications local, but generated the diff with "different spacin= g isn't a difference" option. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Please just use =E2=80=9Cgit diff=E2=80=9D. It has a variety of = settings that are just right. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> I'll use this in future. Because I didn't do the modification in = a git repo, but in the working system, I didn't realize the possibility of di= ffing two arbitrary files with "git diff". Sorry. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Of course you would have the files in your working system. How els= e would you test? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> But for development purposes git is being used. It is the standard= . Otherwise patches won=E2=80=99t apply. There is no point in sending patches= that other developers cannot apply. Use Git. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Ok. If I don't have a git repo myself, I send the modified source. = Each developer with an actual git repo can apply it by commit. Right? > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Please learn how to use git. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Of course you could send modified files around, but that does not wo= rk. Of course you could send instructions to other people on how to change fi= les, but that doesn=E2=80=99t work either. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> I personally won=E2=80=99t do any work of trying to apply any patche= s that are send in other forms. There is also reasons that we send patches in= line: We can comment on them. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Please learn how to use git. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> All said about this above. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> This generated a short diff without real corrections only. > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if($key =3D=3D $szc) { #add > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + @current2[$key] =3D "$dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'},$dhcp= settings{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_NEXTADDR= '},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$dhcpsettings{= 'FIX_REMARK'}\n"; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + # sort newly added/modified entry > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + &sortcurrent2; > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure we can sort here? > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> See: https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff= ;h=3D31672dc8bdb223ebf425ff96be64318f2d68e0d7 > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes! Why not? > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Because of the commit I referred to. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Didn't understand this commit, because of lack of commentation. ;) > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> And you didn=E2=80=99t ask any questions then? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Ok. I ask you now. Why doesn't it function? > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Well, as the patch there states the key is saved and used later. Whe= n the leases file is sorted, the key changes but is not updated. That lead to= the case that you edited a different lease than you wanted. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> I did not test this, but I could imagine that this could happen here= , too. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> I know from reading and understandig the code, that this works. The a= pproval by Matthias Fischer shows, that I'm right. See the related forum thre= ad. > >>>>> Software development and code review is no field of imagination. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + &General::log($Lang::tr{'fixed ip lease added'}); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + $dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} =3D ''; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + } else { #edit > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unshift (@current2, "$dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'},$dhcpsetti= ngs{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_NEXTADDR'},$d= hcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_= REMARK'}\n"); > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &General::log($Lang::tr{'fixed ip lease added'}); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> # Enter edit mode > >>>>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} =3D 0; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>>>>> } else { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> @current2[$dhcpsettings{'KEY2'}] =3D "$dhcpsettings{'FIX= _MAC'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'= FIX_NEXTADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$d= hcpsettings{'FIX_REMARK'}\n"; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} =3D ''; # End edit mode > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.18.0 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Michael > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Again, my intention was a quick resolution for the behaviour me= ntioned in the forum post, which initiated my code review of dhcpi.cgi > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I will try to explain this one last time - not just only f= or you, but generally: > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> I am not interested in quick and dirty solutions. That is how yo= u break things. I am interested in well-documented, peer-reviewed and tested = code. We are creating some piece of high-quality software - or aim to do so a= t least - and there is no space for quick and dirty. > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> This special modication wasn't intended as quick and dirty, but a= s quick and stable and intuitive. Sorry, the first version was really a 'dirt= y shot'. But I wanted to present this as soon as possible for review and test= , which was done by Matthias Fischer.=20 > >>>>>>>>> I agree fully with your aim, but this means readability also! Thi= s means some ( many? ) 'cosmetic' changes in the future, IMHO. Is this accept= ed? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> You cannot submit a patch that does not fulfil the guidelines and = then promise to fix it later. There are obvious problems with the patch and t= here are open questions. Why would we merge something that clearly adds more = problems than it solves? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> So no, it is not accepted. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Where are the problems? > >>>>>>> Be more specific please. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Read my first email on the patch. That is as specific as it gets. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> I'll do this. But I don't know whether this changes the my opinion ab= out the fixed problem. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Please figure out how to set up a local Git repository, how to s= et up a branch, how to commit things and what rules there are to follow. Then= find out on how to submit a patchset to the mailing list - after it has been= tested. It is all in the link that I sent you. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> This is not a competition about who can submit patches the faste= st. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> As stated before, the fact I didn't use a git repo has reasons in= my personal installation at the moment. Therefore your reminder about that i= sn't relevant for this single case. I also stated, that I'll surely use git f= or greater modifications I do on this topic ( and others ). > >>>>>>>>> I didn't want to start a competition. It was just one more post i= n the forum about not intuitive behaviour of the DHCP WUI page, resulting in = a bugzilla topic by Matthias.=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> I found a couple of behaviours of this page, which are not obvi= ous or straight forward ( adding dynamic leases to static leases, for exampl= e, maybe this is invoked now by my modification). > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> What are those? Why are we not talking about those first and the= n come up with fixes? The whole DHCP page is a mess. I am not sure if it can = even be fixed or of things won=E2=80=99t just become worse. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Being an experienced software developer, I think this is possible= and I am just working on this. I'll discuss these topics in the list before = sending patches, being aware this is a community project this many opinions. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> This is not necessarily about opinions. It is about what we can su= pport in the end and where we all want to invest our time. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Helping users with known problems, which could be resolved, is wati= ng time also. In the moment I do this mainly. > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Think about that we are all in the same boat and we want to improv= e IPFire wherever we can. But we need to talk about things because one set of= eyes often is not enough. Something that works for one person does not work = for another. We can never break backwards-compatibility. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> I personally want to see this static lease bug fixed. I am trying = to help you to develop a good solution that we do not have to worry about in = the future. I am also enforcing the rules that we all have come up with some = long time ago and that work for this project. That way we will hopefully all = benefit from this. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Why didn't you just say this. A request for the whole file would ha= ve been enough. BTW the file can be found in the forum post. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> There are problems *in* the file. I raised questions. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> see above. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> But I do not want to have endless discussions on this list about w= hy the rules are as they are. If there is a constructive proposal to make thi= ngs easier for all then we are all of course open for this. On the other hand= debating what is the standard now is just a waste of time. I am happy to exp= lain this, but I am not willing to debate them or compromise on this. Again, = this is a general statement and not limited to this conversation. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> You started this discussion ( once more ). > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Okay, I tried to be helpful here. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> If you prefer to insist that this patch is not being amended and if = you also prefer to point fingers, keep doing it. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> I will remember this and keep my comments to myself in the future th= en. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> There is no need to behave like this. I'll be quiet myself upon sourc= e quality and proposed fixes for bugs. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> I am reviewing this piece of code at the moment and plan to su= ggest some modifications/corrections with formally legal patches. I hope this= is ok for the core devs. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> As I said, please follow the process. It is there for a reason. = This is not to make things difficult. In fact it makes things a lot easier in= the long term. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Agreed, too. But again, this special problem appears from time to= time in the forums. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Why do we not have a ticket on BZ then? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> The ticket is there ( see subject of this discussion ) and the solu= tion exists. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> I disagree with this =E2=80=9Csolution=E2=80=9D. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Why? > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> -Bernhard > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> -Bernhard > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> It is no problem, to describe the behaviour each time ( define fi= xed lease -> press 'add' -> press 'update' --> definition is stored ), but wh= at about a easy solution, which deletes this discussion? Exactly this was the= reason for the patch. The amount of modified code isn't so big to demand the= canonical development process, IMHO. The patch can be applied by any core de= velopper reading DevList/bugzilla/forums regulary. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> It is entirely up to you how you develop your code. How it is subm= itted to the list is clear. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> -Michael > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> -Bernhard > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> -Michael > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Bernhard > >>>>=20 > >>>>=20 > >>=20 > >>=20 >=20 > --===============2329816462915189245==--