Discussion:
small improvement to ssd1306.h
(too old to reply)
Sebastien Lorquet sebastien@lorquet.fr [nuttx]
2018-02-15 18:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Please attached a patch whose absence generated a funny warning:

..../include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h:255:23: note: expected 'struct
i2c_master_s *' but argument is of type 'struct i2c_master_s *'

The header just lacks a forward definition for that struct. Attached is
a trivial patch.

Sebastien
spudarnia@yahoo.com [nuttx]
2018-02-15 20:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Committed!

Notice that there is no patch visible here on Yahoo! If you use the "View" button to see the source, you will see it ends with:

Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Of course, the attachment was present in the forward email that I received. And if I view the source of the email that I received, it ends with the same sequence EXCEPT that the attachment is present:

Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"

diff --git a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
index fa11178..ff981ee 100644
--- a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
+++ b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
@@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ extern "C"
... etc. ...

So I believe this confirms what I was saying in a post a couple of days ago: If you post via email, the attachments will be lost (although present in the forward email, they will not appear on the website).

That is actually not a problem as long as I have the presence of mind to keep the email (sometimes I delete them).

If you really want the patch to be available on Yahoo!, I believe that you have to use the web interface.

Still a small sample, but so far this rule seems 100% correct. This is not some random Yahoo! behavior as people keep saying. It is deterministic.

Does anyone know of any counter-examples?

Greg
Sebastien Lorquet sebastien@lorquet.fr [nuttx]
2018-02-15 21:53:07 UTC
Permalink
I have greater chances of becoming an archbishop than using the yahoo
web interface...

I will send you the patches by direct email.

Sebastien
Post by ***@yahoo.com [nuttx]
 
Committed!
Notice that there is no patch visible here on Yahoo! If you use the
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Of course, the attachment was present in the forward email that I
received. And if I view the source of the email that I received, it
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
diff --git a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
index fa11178..ff981ee 100644
--- a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
+++ b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
@@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ extern "C"
.... etc. ...
So I believe this confirms what I was saying in a post a couple of
days ago: If you post via email, the attachments will be lost
(although present in the forward email, they will not appear on the
website).
That is actually not a problem as long as I have the presence of mind
to keep the email (sometimes I delete them).
If you really want the patch to be available on Yahoo!, I believe that
you have to use the web interface.
Still a small sample, but so far this rule seems 100% correct. This is
not some random Yahoo! behavior as people keep saying. It is
deterministic.
Does anyone know of any counter-examples?
Greg
Alan Carvalho de Assis acassis@gmail.com [nuttx]
2018-02-15 22:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi Greg,

I use the Yahoo group in the option to send individual emails (like a
mailing list) and I'm using my gmail account on it and here the
attachment appears correctly.

I think maybe the issue happen to people using Yahoo groups with yahoo
email, now sure.

BR,

Alan
Post by ***@yahoo.com [nuttx]
Committed!
Notice that there is no patch visible here on Yahoo! If you use the "View"
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Of course, the attachment was present in the forward email that I received.
And if I view the source of the email that I received, it ends with the
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
name="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="0078_ssd1306-i2c.patch"
diff --git a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
index fa11178..ff981ee 100644
--- a/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
+++ b/include/nuttx/lcd/ssd1306.h
@@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ extern "C"
... etc. ...
If you post via email, the attachments will be lost (although present in
the forward email, they will not appear on the website).
That is actually not a problem as long as I have the presence of mind to
keep the email (sometimes I delete them).
If you really want the patch to be available on Yahoo!, I believe that you
have to use the web interface.
Still a small sample, but so far this rule seems 100% correct. This is not
some random Yahoo! behavior as people keep saying. It is deterministic.
Does anyone know of any counter-examples?
Greg
Loading...