Update rpcconsole.cpp #7585

fixes for building against LibreSSL - tested on CentOS 7 with LibreSSL 2.3.2

Please use a better commit message than just the GitHub editor default. Once you've changed the commit can you also update the title of the PR.

Agree with @fanquake. nit:I would also recommend to switch the #if so that SSLeay_version will be used if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER or LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER is unset.

And this is why I don't get involved in many projects.

Have a nice day.

@AliceWonderMiscreations:

OO projects require a certain amount of mental strength. Don't take it personal. It's just how we reach better/good quality, there is no personal offense in the comments above.

Would be nice if you could finish the PR. Because I think is useful.

@jonasschnelli It's one damn line of code and it is fricken obvious what it does and it isn't worth my bloody time to go through a bunch of formalities to submit a one line fix for what is clearly broken as in it causes the damn build to fail.

Feel free to submit your own pull with the formalities and if blocks you might want.

@AliceWonderMiscreations hmm... we just wanted to improve things. No need to rush. The commit message Update rpcconsole.cpp is not something we should have in our git log.

Check all other (small) pull requests. This is how we work here and its not an personal offense. It is how we establish good quality.

Even a one line change is worth doing right (and consistently).

There's no hurry. If you don't want to fix the review nits, that's fine, you have no obligation at all, no need to get worked up about it. I'm sure someone can make this change in less time than we've spent arguing about this.

Agree, the change is worth doing right.

So anyone who wants to improve upon it is free to do so. I don't care if my change is used, I just want to be able to build future releases without needing to patch.

I don't however like being patronized or told that an obvious pull request isn't good enough because of some silly procedural thing that has nothing to do with the code. The code is important, not the commit message used.

And you are absolutely right, it's not worth getting worked up over. Hence my comment - this is why I rarely contribute to projects.

That btw is why I left the fedora project, rejecting people's packages because the timestamp on the source tarball didn't match upstream even though the hash was identical. Stuff like that just really irritated me. Have fun with your pedantic club.

I've been a contributor here for years, just look at a few pull requests by me and you'll see it has lots of similar review comments. It can feel patronizing, don't take it personal.

Software development is a social activity as well. For better or worse, any cooperation between people has some formal component to it.

The code is important, not the commit message used.

A commit message is communication. Open source strives for "more eyes on the code is better". People read over the commit logs to see what has changed, and a short but clear commit message helps faster understanding - what was wrong, which cases triggered this, why was this change necessary, etc.

I agree people can be overzealous in some cases, and it's good to define your boundaries, but still, there's a good reason to have certain fixed procedures. This will be the same in most projects, also closed-source ones.

In any case, going to close this.

Yes. I'm not very good with social skills, I concede that. I never have been. I'm a different kind of creature.

Have a nice day.

I'm not either, so I understand.

Fixed in #7605