From dev-return-15370-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Sun Jan 29 23:10:13 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 95208 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2006 23:10:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2006 23:10:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 87312 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2006 23:10:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 87056 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2006 23:10:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 87045 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jan 2006 23:10:11 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of chip@force-elite.com designates 216.255.199.145 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.255.199.145] (HELO utopia.in.force-elite.com) (216.255.199.145) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:10 -0800 X-AuthUser: chip@force-elite.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (127.0.0.1:50591) by localhost with [XMail 1.17 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:09:48 -0800 Message-ID: <43DD4B3C.5060507@force-elite.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:09:48 -0800 From: Paul Querna User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Mansion CC: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Race condition in apr_file_read on Windows References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N James Mansion wrote: >> correct or not, but sending a patch instead of just >> a "put this chunk of code in" description of what >> needs to be done would make it infinitely more >> likely for a developer to evaluate and commit the fix. > > Who is actually responsible for reviewing Win32 fixes? No one is 'responsible' for anything.