On Thursday 01 April 2004 02:03 am, Charles Sprickman wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > > I simply wrote a patch to make it work. I'm not a maintainer of the > > package, if they want to modify it to make it work along side with the > > existing stuff, go right ahead. We are not using the older > > --enable-spam-command stuff with our customers, so the patch I made > > doesn't affect any of them, other than allowing their users to > > enable/disable spamassassin scanning themselves. > > OK, let me put it this way. If I was a committer and I went and pulled > out what you put in and put something in there that better suits my > personal needs, would my commit bit get pulled? > > It simply would have been nice if you had left the old option intact and > let people choose if they want the "integrated" spamc options or the "not > so integrated but much more flexible" spamc options. > > At the very least, can you document this in the CHANGELOG and README > files? People besides you and your customers do use this code, that's why > the project is over at SF.
I agree Charles. I'll work with Jeremy on keeping the old code in and adding the new code as a new option. I've always tried to keep each release of qmailadmin (and vpopmail) backwardsly compatible. Ken Jones
