Alan DeKok wrote:
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
I was not being rude. I just expressed my genuine startledness.
You were implying that I was lying to you.
No, not lying, inaccurate perhaps.
I admit that I didn't read all the archives. I read the code first and found numerous spots where it was marked "Does not work" and a lot of the code broke due to different macros, and I found places which simply said "Fill in code here". So I assumed that it's not in production.
And when I told you it was used in production, you implied I was lying to you. That's rude.
The thing is that "being used in production" is relative. I understand now that older versions of the code are being used in production, but since then this code has had changes which broke functionality (the old vs. new macro patches I submitted). I also understand that the *comments* were lying at times (the comments clearly state that essential parts of the code "do not work"), so forgive me for pointing out that both the *current* code and the comments were in direct conflict with your statement.
It might not seem like that, but I don't think I corrupted this ability. I want/need that flexibility myself, so I was very careful to preserve it.
See src/lib/dhcp.c. You deleted tons of "pairfind VP, use contents in DHCP packet".
I'll take a good look again when I readd the DHCP relay stuff to see if I indeed deleted more than I intended. -- Stephen.