apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm MacCarthaigh <c...@stdlib.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r422157 - /apr/apr/trunk/file_io/win32/filepath.c
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:05:18 GMT
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:30:09PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Piddle with your experiments in a sandbox.  Vetoed code needs to go when
> it's vetoed.  This veto is over the fact that you've CHANGED security
> related behavior, and that won't become acceptable.
> The fact that it hasn't been reverted shows really bad etiquite by the
> committer.  Commit then review means just that; this is committed, the
> fact that it breaks canonical comparisons was observed, now that it's
> reviewed it needs to be reverted.
> Then we can discuss what the correct fix is, in terms of solving the
> test cases.

Is there some kind of metaphysical bubble of blockage that prevents us
from discussing it before an arbitrary svn operation?

*reaches out to feel for the bubble*

*bursts it*


Anyway, lest I increase our productivity ...

maybe there's a case for modifying apr_filepath_get on win32 here, to
use the same canonicalised format? We're probably not the only people
likely to perform these kind of niaive string comparisons, and we're
supposed to know our own codebase ;-)

Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net

View raw message