Bidwatcher port

[Annelise Anderson]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Matthew Hunt wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:40:13AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 
> > Also, you should contact the port maintainer to propose changes to the
> > port...that's what they're there for.
> 
> Annelise did CC me (the maintainer) on her email about the port, I
> just haven't chimed in yet because I've been rearranging the office
> (including computer moves) all day.
> 
> I don't have strong feelings either way about TIMEFUDGE.  I agree
> with Annelise that it's kind of a dumb idea in the modern era of NTP
> timekeeping; at the very least, 5 minutes of slop is really a lot.
> OTOH, I'm not sure that it's the job of FreeBSD porters to make
> changes like these in an application's default behavior (going behind
> the author's back, as it were).  Opinions?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
It was my impression that TIMEFUDGE is a product of the patch and is not
in the original code.  

Nothing in the description of the port on sourceforge would lead one
to believe there's a 5-minute time advance built in; and the amount of
the advance is added in the Makefile.  The original bidwatcher.cpp has
no TIMEFUDGE variable.

I've built it outside the ports collection at times and gotten no
delay. Five minutes is enormous--it gives your opponents plenty of
time to outbid you; and that's the whole idea of sniping--coming in
at the end with a bid to which no one has time to respond.

I agree it's not hard to change the Makefile--it's just that it's
unexpected behavior.  Most people use 12 or 14 seconds before the
auction ends, maybe 20 at most.

		Annelise  






-- 
Annelise Anderson
Author of: 		 FreeBSD: An Open-Source Operating System for Your PC
Available from:	 BSDmall.com and amazon.com
Book Website:    http://www.bittreepress.com/FreeBSD/introbook/