On 13-03-16 17:23, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12-03-16 18:32, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 10-03-16 05:55, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Graham Bloice
>>>>> <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 March 2016 at 18:06, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Need to review some stuff. Where/what are the instructions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/SubmittingPatches
>>>>>
>>>>> That didn't actually answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to guess that google-oauth[2]-blah-blah was the correct thing to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> It worked, however.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that this line of the referenced Wiki page is incorrect/unhelpful?
>>>>
>>>> "Go to Wireshark's Gerrit Code Review site and sign in. Gerrit supports OpenID,
>>>> so if you've got an account with Google, Yahoo, Launchpad, Wordpress, Blogger or
>>>> any of a dozen other OpenID providers you will be able to use that account."
>>>
>>> Well, it wasn't clear what I should do when I got there, so I clicked
>>> on what looked reasonable and it worked.
>>>
>>> I have already reached that page before asking the question.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the page in question could have clarifying words like "Click
>>> the appropriate link below to authenticate'
>>>
>>> Attached is a screen shot of that page.
>>>
>>> So, should I enter my username in the first field and click one of the
>>> links? Which one? The first two do not mention the work sign in, etc.
>>>
>>> It is confusing. Eventually, I figured it out, but it shouldn't take that long.
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now I see, for someone unfamiliar with OpenID(1) it's not immediately obvious
>> how this thing works. But anyone reasonably intelligent should be able to figure
>> it out easily, as you've experienced. Granted, the page is a bid sparse, a line
>> like you proposed would be fitting.
>
> OK, I'll admit it. I not intelligent :-)
>
>> (1) Making assumptions here, talking in the general sense.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jaap
>>
He he ;)
