Re: tramp (2.1.6); Unnecessary delays accept-process-output; proposed fix

[Michael Albinus]

"Wagemans, Peter" <address@hidden> writes:

> Since I'm now looking at getting 2.1.6 working, below is a similar
> patch for that tramp release. I can imagine other ways of doing it,
> but this seemed a relatively simple approach.

Your code looks very promising, so I tend to install the patch. From
first reading, I would propose to declare
`tramp-accept-process-output-timeout' as a constant but a customer
option - there are already too many Tramp customer options which
aren't used I suspect.

Just a legal question: Your code is more than a "tiny" patch (~15
lines), therefore it would require signing legal papers from the
FSF. Did you do such paperwork already? If not, would you be willing
to sign?

> Regards,
>
> Peter Wagemans

Thanks a lot for your contribution, and best regards, Michael.