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 00:21:04 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4BCAD6B4-E969-4EDE-A988-272154B6259D@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1470203059433166564==" List-Id: --===============1470203059433166564== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, sorry if I were not exact enough. I am working with a matter of urgency on th= e DHCP config problem and surely will contact Florian, if I've found the erro= r and a real fix for it. My post was just a heads up about this work. The rewriting will be the second= step, after bug elimination. The purpose should be to faciliate future bug f= ixes. 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. When I am finished with the rewrite (including the error fix) I'll publish it= either here in the devel list or in git or both. Is this ok? Best, Bernhard > Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Mai 2019 um 21:18 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 > This bug is currently assigned to Florian, because I have asked him to have= a look at it. >=20 > I do not really care who is working on this, but I would like everyone to w= ork together on it. >=20 > I would also like to stress that we have urgent fixes for loads of Intel pr= ocessors in Core Update 132 and I think that this problem should also be fixe= d 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 wrot= e: > >=20 > > Hello, > >=20 > > just some news about this topic. > >=20 > > - Michael was right to refuse my quick and dirty patch. It did not really= solve the problem, maybe it introduced some new problems. Sorry for my quick= and dirty reaction. > >=20 > > - I wasn't satisfied with the situation being. The problem exists further= more and isn't easy solved. Therefore I started a review and commenting for m= y own. With some effort I think I've located the main error ( see my short po= st 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 ) should = and can be optimised. > > The operations "add new fixed lease", "edit existing fixed lease", "add d= ynamic 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 l= ist, 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 bo= x. 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 edit = box. Editing is mandatory! We should not merge sets of fixed and dynamic leas= es. 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 r= eadability, .... ) I would suggest a commit of approved file as a whole, not = just as single little patches. How can this be accomplished? > > I think little patches here and there cannot solve the problem of low mai= ntainability 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 'a= dd' click > >>=20 > >> Hello, > >>=20 > >> I just wanted to share with the list that Bernhard has emailed me in pri= vate, telling me that he no longer wants to pursue getting this patch merged. > >>=20 > >> I find this whole situation very frustrating, but of course I accept his= 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 wr= ote: > >>>=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 one = '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 does= 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 on= e '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 with = 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 wit= h one 'add' click > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Matthias for helping out here. However, I do not get the = patch. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> There is no explanation about what it is meant to do. The intent= ion 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 w= ith 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 thousand= s of emails on a mailing list to find out what is actually intended in the co= de. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> You're right. But knowing, there should be some more work on this p= age, this wasn't my main effort for this quick and short solution. For this s= pecial case I regarded the forum post and the bugzilla entry to be sufficient= 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::tr{= '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 $key) { > >>>>>>>>>>> # same MAC is OK on different subnets. This test is not co= mplete because > >>>>>>>>>>> # if ip are not inside a known subnet, I don't warn. > >>>>>>>>>>> # Also it may be needed to put duplicate fixed lease in th= eir right subnet definition.. > >>>>>>>>>>> + if ((lc($dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'}) eq lc($temp[0])) &&(lc(= $dhcpsettings{'FIX_ADDR'}) eq lc($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::tr{= 'add'}.'2') { > >>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'} =3D &Header::cleanhtml($dhcpsett= ings{'FIX_FILENAME'}); > >>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'} =3D &Header::cleanhtml($dhcpsett= ings{'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 should = not make it worse either. > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> How should indention be done? By spaces, tabs? How many colums de= fine an indent? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> In the patch it looks like you wrapped the block into another if c= ondition. So it has to be indented to make that obvious. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Maybe this generated by different editors, I used. Indention of the= 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 patch= 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 lack= 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 and = videos. > >>>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>> Sorry, I know about git. It is not the lack of knowledge, but my limite= d equipment. You invite to donate for the project, which is very urgent, I th= ink. On the other hand I've tried to help with limited sources and without mo= netary assistance, till now. If this isn't possible, it is okay for me. I'll = retire to the status "consuming user". > >>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> The original file (and many ohters!) have an mixture of tab/space= . 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" defini= tion, which I didn't find in the docs (yet). > >>>>>>> I'll use this definition for further development ( and formated dhc= pi.cgi in my work copy in the neighbourhood of the change, yet ). > >>>>>>> This means that further patches may contain such "cosmetics", if th= ey are necessary to understand the code working on. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> If you insist to take this conversation down this route, then feel f= ree 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. T= herefore my statement. If we commit us to tab=3D4 these spaces can be elimina= ted. > >>>>=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 fil= e. 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 o= f "don't touch a running system", IMHO. > >>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> No problem. But this will produce a great number of patches. I ma= de these modifications local, but generated the diff with "different spacing = isn't a difference" option. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Please just use =E2=80=9Cgit diff=E2=80=9D. It has a variety of se= ttings 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 diff= ing two arbitrary files with "git diff". Sorry. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Of course you would have the files in your working system. How else = 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 t= hat other developers cannot apply. Use Git. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Ok. If I don't have a git repo myself, I send the modified source. Ea= ch 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 work= . Of course you could send instructions to other people on how to change file= s, but that doesn=E2=80=99t work either. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I personally won=E2=80=99t do any work of trying to apply any patches = that are send in other forms. There is also reasons that we send patches inli= ne: 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 "$dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'},$dhcpse= ttings{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_NEXTADDR'}= ,$dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$dhcpsettings{'F= IX_REMARK'}\n"; > >>>>>>>>>>> + # sort newly added/modified entry > >>>>>>>>>>> + &sortcurrent2; > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure we can sort here? > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>> See: https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h= =3D31672dc8bdb223ebf425ff96be64318f2d68e0d7 > >>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Yes! Why not? > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Because of the commit I referred to. > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Didn't understand this commit, because of lack of commentation. ;) > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> And you didn=E2=80=99t ask any questions then? > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Ok. I ask you now. Why doesn't it function? > >>>>=20 > >>>> Well, as the patch there states the key is saved and used later. When = the leases file is sorted, the key changes but is not updated. That lead to t= he case that you edited a different lease than you wanted. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I did not test this, but I could imagine that this could happen here, = too. > >>>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>> I know from reading and understandig the code, that this works. The app= roval by Matthias Fischer shows, that I'm right. See the related forum thread. > >>> Software development and code review is no field of imagination. > >>>=20 > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> + &General::log($Lang::tr{'fixed ip lease added'}); > >>>>>>>>>>> + $dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} =3D ''; > >>>>>>>>>>> + } else { #edit > >>>>>>>>>>> unshift (@current2, "$dhcpsettings{'FIX_MAC'},$dhcpsetting= s{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_NEXTADDR'},$dhc= psettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_RE= MARK'}\n"); > >>>>>>>>>>> &General::log($Lang::tr{'fixed ip lease added'}); > >>>>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>>> # Enter edit mode > >>>>>>>>>>> $dhcpsettings{'KEY2'} =3D 0; > >>>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>>> } else { > >>>>>>>>>>> @current2[$dhcpsettings{'KEY2'}] =3D "$dhcpsettings{'FIX_M= AC'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ENABLED'},$dhcpsettings{'FI= X_NEXTADDR'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_FILENAME'},$dhcpsettings{'FIX_ROOTPATH'},$dhc= psettings{'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 ment= ioned 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 for= you, but generally: > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> I am not interested in quick and dirty solutions. That is how you = break things. I am interested in well-documented, peer-reviewed and tested co= de. We are creating some piece of high-quality software - or aim to do so at = least - and there is no space for quick and dirty. > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> This special modication wasn't intended as quick and dirty, but as = quick and stable and intuitive. Sorry, the first version was really a 'dirty = 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! This = means some ( many? ) 'cosmetic' changes in the future, IMHO. Is this accepted? > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> You cannot submit a patch that does not fulfil the guidelines and th= en promise to fix it later. There are obvious problems with the patch and the= re are open questions. Why would we merge something that clearly adds more pr= oblems 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 abou= t the fixed problem. > >>>=20 > >>>>>>>> Please figure out how to set up a local Git repository, how to set= up a branch, how to commit things and what rules there are to follow. Then f= ind out on how to submit a patchset to the mailing list - after it has been t= ested. It is all in the link that I sent you. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> This is not a competition about who can submit patches the fastest. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> As stated before, the fact I didn't use a git repo has reasons in m= y personal installation at the moment. Therefore your reminder about that isn= 't relevant for this single case. I also stated, that I'll surely use git for= greater modifications I do on this topic ( and others ). > >>>>>>> I didn't want to start a competition. It was just one more post in = 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 obviou= s or straight forward ( adding dynamic leases to static leases, for example,= maybe this is invoked now by my modification). > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> What are those? Why are we not talking about those first and then = come up with fixes? The whole DHCP page is a mess. I am not sure if it can ev= en be fixed or of things won=E2=80=99t just become worse. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Being an experienced software developer, I think this is possible a= nd I am just working on this. I'll discuss these topics in the list before se= nding patches, being aware this is a community project this many opinions. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> This is not necessarily about opinions. It is about what we can supp= ort in the end and where we all want to invest our time. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Helping users with known problems, which could be resolved, is wating= time also. In the moment I do this mainly. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>>> Think about that we are all in the same boat and we want to improve = IPFire wherever we can. But we need to talk about things because one set of e= yes often is not enough. Something that works for one person does not work fo= r 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 th= e future. I am also enforcing the rules that we all have come up with some lo= ng time ago and that work for this project. That way we will hopefully all be= nefit from this. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Why didn't you just say this. A request for the whole file would have= 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 why= the rules are as they are. If there is a constructive proposal to make thing= s easier for all then we are all of course open for this. On the other hand d= ebating what is the standard now is just a waste of time. I am happy to expla= in this, but I am not willing to debate them or compromise on this. Again, th= is 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 yo= u also prefer to point fingers, keep doing it. > >>>>=20 > >>>> I will remember this and keep my comments to myself in the future then. > >>>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>> There is no need to behave like this. I'll be quiet myself upon source = quality and proposed fixes for bugs. > >>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> I am reviewing this piece of code at the moment and plan to sugg= est some modifications/corrections with formally legal patches. I hope this i= s ok for the core devs. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> As I said, please follow the process. It is there for a reason. Th= is is not to make things difficult. In fact it makes things a lot easier in t= he long term. > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> Agreed, too. But again, this special problem appears from time to t= ime 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 soluti= on 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 fixe= d lease -> press 'add' -> press 'update' --> definition is stored ), but what= about a easy solution, which deletes this discussion? Exactly this was the r= eason for the patch. The amount of modified code isn't so big to demand the c= anonical development process, IMHO. The patch can be applied by any core deve= lopper reading DevList/bugzilla/forums regulary. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> It is entirely up to you how you develop your code. How it is submit= ted to the list is clear. > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>> -Michael > >>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>> -Bernhard > >>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>> -Michael > >>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>>=20 > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Bernhard > >>=20 > >>=20 >=20 > --===============1470203059433166564==--