[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] v2: Fixes to allow erc-dcc-get-filter to work properly

From: Victor Orlikowski
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v2: Fixes to allow erc-dcc-get-filter to work properly
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:57:16 +0000


My apologies for the belated reply, and for failing to properly follow the 
contribution guidelines. I'll read them and make every effort to comply with 
them, for any future patches I submit.

My thanks for your suggested changes, willingness to work with me, and 
acceptance of this patch.

Regarding my other patch (for properly backgrounding ERC's reconnection 
attempts) - should I re-submit, with attention to complying with contribution 

Also - what do I need to do to have it further considered for acceptance? IIRC, 
you had asked for a willing volunteer to review/test it, since you yourself do 
not use ERC.

Thanks again,
Victor J. Orlikowski <> vjo@(ee.|cs.)?duke.edu

On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:19 AM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Victor Orlikowski <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:14:26 +0000
>> When using erc-dcc-get-filter with erc-dcc-verbose set to t, message
>> errors prevent the DCC get from completing correctly.
>> The attached patch adds some additional error checking to
>> erc-dcc-get-filter, and uses ethe function buffer-name in place of
>> the variable buffer-file-name (which appears to be nil in this
>> context, which thereby causes the message errors).
>>> From cd390337b8e819248568b900e6115dde8a19fde9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: "Victor J. Orlikowski" <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 11:13:57 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] Perform additional validation in erc-dcc-get-filter, and use
>> the function buffer-name rather than buffer-file-name (which is actually nil
>> in this context).
> Thanks, I pushed this to the emacs-26 branch.
> For the future, please note the following 2 gotchas:
>  . The title of your patch (in the Subject) was too long, and our
>    Git commit hooks rejected it.  It should be a single line, not
>    ending in a period, and it should not exceed 79 characters
>  . You didn't provide ChangeLog-style entries for the changes you
>    made, which mention the modified function(s) and what was changed
>    in each one.
> This is described in more detail in CONTRIBUTE, which I suggest to
> read.
> Thanks again for working on this.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]