Re: ECDH support for sendmail

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Nov 5,  8:27pm, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
} John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> wrote:
} 
} > OWNER should be used instead of MAINTAINER when you do not want
} > other developers to update or change the package without contacting
} > you first.
} 
} Which is what happened for now: I have not committed anything and you
} have been contacted.

     You didn't send mail to the OWNER= address.  Had you done so,
it would have arrived in a mailbox to which I give a higher priority.
Also, this may be a cultural/language issue, but there is a huge
difference between "If nobody complain" and "May I do this?"  The
first is saying that you will do something unless told otherwise.
The second is asking permission, which is the appropriate thing to
do.  Basically the first is looking for a negative response and
the second is looking for a positive affirmation.

} >      I'm not opposed to adding support for ECDH, but I really don't
} > like the way you've gone about it, so for now I am rejecting your
} > patch. 
} 
} Is there a technical point, or is it purely formal? I assume the later
} case, and I ask you to take that patch, please.


     It looks like my choice of words was rather poor.  I meant to
say that I didn't like the way you've implemented it.  You didn't
answer my question about the origin of the patch...  As I indicated,
I want to know more about the patch before I decide what to do with
it.  I also don't want a huge proliferation of options, so I may
just make it a regular patch if it is safe to do so.

}-- End of excerpt from Emmanuel Dreyfus