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

[Victor Orlikowski]

Eli,

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 
guidelines?

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
--
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.