[Ipmitool-devel] Revised IPv6 patch

[Liebig, Holger]

To whom it may concern,
I revised my IPv6 patch for ipmitool, it now uses one central function to connect the socket which should make maintenance easier and also tries to auto detect the scope id for IPv6 addresses if not specified with the hostname on the command line. This is a connectivity patch only, OEM/vendor specific IPv6 extensions to IPMI are not considered.

See https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ for details, this obsoletes patch 81

Best Regards,
Holger Liebig

[Zdenek Styblik]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Liebig, Holger

Post by Liebig, Holger
To whom it may concern,
I revised my IPv6 patch for ipmitool, it now uses one central function to connect the socket which should make maintenance easier and also tries to auto detect the scope id for IPv6 addresses if not specified with the hostname on the command line. This is a connectivity patch only, OEM/vendor specific IPv6 extensions to IPMI are not considered.
See https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ for details, this obsoletes patch 81
Best Regards,
Holger Liebig

Holger,

despite this is a good news, I wonder whether it's really necessary to
have three tickets to track one feature.

* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/feature-requests/32/ - created on
2013-04-02 by myself
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/81/ - created on 2013-09-02 by you
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ - created on 2013-09-30 by you

I find this state a bit confusing. I understand it's probably
impossible to attach file to somebody's else ticket(I haven't tested
new SF.net yet). What I don't understand is why you have created a new
ticket. Moreover, why haven't you updated your original ticket instead
of creating a new one.

Thanks,
Z.

Post by Liebig, Holger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ipmitool-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel

[Liebig, Holger]

Post by Zdenek Styblik
Holger,
despite this is a good news, I wonder whether it's really necessary to have
three tickets to track one feature.
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/feature-requests/32/ - created on
2013-04-02 by myself
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/81/ - created on 2013-09-02 by you
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ - created on 2013-09-30 by you
I find this state a bit confusing. I understand it's probably impossible to
attach file to somebody's else ticket(I haven't tested new SF.net yet).
What I don't understand is why you have created a new ticket. Moreover, why
haven't you updated your original ticket instead of creating a new one.

[Liebig, Holger]
Unfortunately, I cannot edit/delete/change the status of my own tickets - maybe because I'm not a direct member of ipmitool, so feel free to delete patch 81 and revise the status of your own ticket. I also think it is a good idea to distinguish between feature requests and actual patches (I had left a notice on your ticket referring to

[Zdenek Styblik]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Liebig, Holger

Post by Liebig, Holger

Post by Zdenek Styblik
Holger,
despite this is a good news, I wonder whether it's really necessary to have
three tickets to track one feature.
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/feature-requests/32/ - created on
2013-04-02 by myself
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/81/ - created on 2013-09-02 by you
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ - created on 2013-09-30 by you
I find this state a bit confusing. I understand it's probably impossible to
attach file to somebody's else ticket(I haven't tested new SF.net yet).
What I don't understand is why you have created a new ticket. Moreover, why
haven't you updated your original ticket instead of creating a new one.

[Liebig, Holger]
Unfortunately, I cannot edit/delete/change the status of my own tickets

Despite what you're saying is true, do you really feel like you have
to edit status of the ticket? I believe to remove previous version of
patch or simply posting new message to ticket in question with words:
``Here is updated version, ignore the original'' would be more than
sufficient. Other people did and do it this way.

Post by Liebig, Holger
I also think it is a good idea to distinguish between feature requests and actual patches (I had left a notice on your ticket referring to my first version of the patch).

Uh, in which way exactly? What do you mean? I hope you don't mean to
tell me feature request ticket and patch ticket are two different
things, are you? As a matter of fact, "patches" queue should be used
scarcely, if it should be used at all. In other words, we could either
remove it completely(somewhat planned) or rename it to "trash",
"dosnt-fit-anywhere-else" etc., because that's the perception of this
ticket queue. I, I can't speak for others, fail to see purpose of this
queue. But anyone feel free to explain it to me.

Best regards,
Z.

[Ales Ledvinka]

Hello,

Zdenek, without admin rights the tickets permissions used to be (still is?) sort of surprise even for owned tickets.
That kind of surprise that involves few scratches while thinking of a workaround and options left to try and
comes with a "Better luck next time, if you still remember this won't be possible."

The Patches queue seems to be a bit mess or at least adds duplicate administration.
I do not know, was it added to overcome earlier ticket interface limitations of attaching patches to other's tickets?

And does the disable patches queue mean besides loosing the mail archive links also loosing the tickets/history?
If so any plan to transfer the tickets to Bug or Feature queue? Or is it possible to alias-redirect either the ticket or the queue?

Since there is hardly anything else then Fix, Feature, or mix of the two I would either use the Feature/Bugfix with hiding the category
but not the tickets or rename to Feature/Bugfix/Feature+Bugfix



----- Original Message -----
From: "Zdenek Styblik" <***@gmail.com>
To: "Holger Liebig" <***@ts.fujitsu.com>
Cc: ipmitool-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:05:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipmitool-devel] Revised IPv6 patch

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Liebig, Holger

Post by Liebig, Holger

Post by Zdenek Styblik
Holger,
despite this is a good news, I wonder whether it's really necessary to have
three tickets to track one feature.
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/feature-requests/32/ - created on
2013-04-02 by myself
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/81/ - created on 2013-09-02 by you
* https://sourceforge.net/p/ipmitool/patches/83/ - created on 2013-09-30 by you
I find this state a bit confusing. I understand it's probably impossible to
attach file to somebody's else ticket(I haven't tested new SF.net yet).
What I don't understand is why you have created a new ticket. Moreover, why
haven't you updated your original ticket instead of creating a new one.

[Liebig, Holger]
Unfortunately, I cannot edit/delete/change the status of my own tickets

Despite what you're saying is true, do you really feel like you have
to edit status of the ticket? I believe to remove previous version of
patch or simply posting new message to ticket in question with words:
``Here is updated version, ignore the original'' would be more than
sufficient. Other people did and do it this way.

Post by Liebig, Holger
I also think it is a good idea to distinguish between feature requests and actual patches (I had left a notice on your ticket referring to my first version of the patch).

Uh, in which way exactly? What do you mean? I hope you don't mean to
tell me feature request ticket and patch ticket are two different
things, are you? As a matter of fact, "patches" queue should be used
scarcely, if it should be used at all. In other words, we could either
remove it completely(somewhat planned) or rename it to "trash",
"dosnt-fit-anywhere-else" etc., because that's the perception of this
ticket queue. I, I can't speak for others, fail to see purpose of this
queue. But anyone feel free to explain it to me.

Best regards,
Z.