> I am sure that the pound implementors would be much happier to receive
> suggested patches rather than directives.  Remember, they are GIVING you
> software.  Giving something back would be a nice thing to do.

I point to some details to get a feeling for the developer acceptance.
Is it better to discuss expected changes before any unwanted work will be
performed? Are those issues on the to do list by the maintainers already?

Regards,
Markus

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 13:29 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I am sure that the pound implementors would be much happier to receive
> > suggested patches rather than directives.  Remember, they are GIVING you
> > software.  Giving something back would be a nice thing to do.
> 
> I point to some details to get a feeling for the developer acceptance.
> Is it better to discuss expected changes before any unwanted work will be
performed? Are those issues on the to do list by the maintainers already?

We happily accept patches, or even good ideas. As to your specific
suggestions - some of them are quite irelevant (the threading model),
others are of interest (unused parameters and so on). When can we expect
your patches?
-- 
Robert Segall
Apsis GmbH
Postfach, Uetikon am See, CH-8707
Tel: +41-44-920 4904

> We happily accept patches, or even good ideas. As to your specific
> suggestions - some of them are quite irelevant (the threading model),
> others are of interest (unused parameters and so on).
Why do you think that suggestions about (multi-)threading approaches are 
irrelevant?
I guess that there are still some options to improve the server design.

Where is documented which threads share any data that needs protection 
by mutual exclusion?

> When can we expect your patches? 
Would you like to integrate the appended changes into your source code?
How do you think about my addition of a little function for program 
abortion?

Regards,
Markus