Am 27.03.2011 16:45, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
Can you please rewrite your patch so that it keeps the original 'd' variable? I liked the fact that the 'nextUpdate' variable was incremented in *one* place, and not in several places. Made the whole thing more transparent to me. Besides, I could then see what you have *actually* changed ;-)
Another example on how coding style is a matter of taste. One of the first things I changed was the removing of the d variable that is IMHO superfluous, doesn't have an unique meaning (file age in seconds and time to next check), and no descriptive name. ;)
Anyway, I've rewritten it to match your original patch more closely. Actually I'm surprised how similar they got again, I had some evolution steps that were completely different.
Attached is the rewritten patch as updatemarks-4, and for your convenience a diff between updatemarks-2 and updatemarks-4 that shows the differences more closely.
Cheers,
Udo