Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:28:31 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssh canohost.c ssh.h sshd.c Message-ID: <20000626142831.B2392@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006261703340.78867-100000@green.dyndns.org>; from green@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 05:13:36PM -0400 References: <20000626005726.B11096@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006261703340.78867-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > No, they weren't. You compared 1.1 with 1.2, it seems. For that you are right, and I apologize. > God, I sure love CVS. You may be the only one here. ;-) > It belongs with the rest in src/crypto/openssh. It's referenced from there, > from sshd.c and defined in ssh.h, so what makes it not belong there? Why can't the function be in its own file, regardless where it is referenced from? At one time in CS classes they used to encourage one function per file. So it is not totally w/o merit. > As for maintenance headache, I am planning on getting this into the > OpenBSD OpenSSH very soon, and sshd.c/ssh.h/canohost.c will all have > less diffs than before. It doesn't matter. (1) any change to the vendor branch will cause a conflict on the next import. (2) by putting the function in the middle rather than say at the very end, you've increased the possibility that a merge will fail since both the bits both before and after your added function blow the merge if either are changed by the original author. Since I'm not the openssh src/crypto/ maintainer, I wont say anymore. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000626142831.B2392>