Your diff is fine as others use that too. The address to post bug reports, patches and such to is
r...@openssl.org You'll get a moderated auto-response from that once it has passed the [spam]filters there, I guess, and it will then end up being forwarded to the developers mailing list of openssl while having an issue number attached in the subject line, so that you and others can track the item. Couple of things to consider: - zeroeth: might help the team decide & prioritize when you mention against which version of openssl this has been tested. I'm most definitely not on the team, so this is your captain who's directing from the sidewalk (at least that's what the Dutch would say; don't know the English/American version of that saying), but I guess mentioning you've tested it against, say, CVS HEAD of date yyyy/mm/dd might get some hands together, as would listing other (released) versions. Even when those versions have few or no diffs among them at a spot where you worked on, it just helps people to see what your base was and how far you've gone in testing this baby and will give them a bit of a feeling how much it would take to integrate and test the bugger, that's all. - first: make sure your bug report /patch/ ... has a easily understandable subject line; this is your '2 seconds elevator pitch' line. (I'd say yours is very fine.) - second, don't expect instant 'done!' responses. I believe the few people working on OpenSSL are a tad overloaded <tongue in cheek> so a bit of very gentle nudging after a while may help keep your item in the front ranks. And even then, it may be a long wait. If nothing else helps, consider Zen. Um mani padme Um. The guys just don't like getting kicking off their mortgages any better than you do, so that is the bottomest bottom line in OpenSSL RT triage, I'ld say. - third: attach patch files (as you already did! Excellent!) instead of inlining them; helps extraction and processing as email is not a nice medium for inline source exchange. - fourth: If you haven't already, you might want to subscribe to the dev mailing list; though 'proper procedure'[*] would be to send any replies regarding the item through rt@ again for total tracability, we all glitch every once in a while so replies can end up in openssl-dev@ alone (and not RT). [*]) nope, don't ask me where that SOP is written down because I only 'gleaned' that one from leeching the lists for ages. The Internet is so great because it not only allows you to see but above all /overlook/ a lot of relevant detail. And if this 'documentation' is not on the net yet, than hopefully I got it right and some poor soul will copy it into the FAQ or thereabouts for those searching and seeking to find. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Modem Man <modem-...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I found and fixed a small bug in "crypto\bio\b_sock.c" and want to ask > where to post the patch / fix. > > please note: > I can not guarantee of production grade quality of my fix, but it works > pretty well with my implementation of an FTP server. > > regards, > Maik, > the modem-man > > > B.T.W.: what is preferred diff format here? I used "diff -bw -u". Okay? -- Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, Ger Hobbelt -------------------------------------------------- web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ http://www.hebbut.net/ mail: g...@hobbelt.com mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 --------------------------------------------------
