apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <c...@force-elite.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r422157 - /apr/apr/trunk/file_io/win32/filepath.c
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:53:24 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 7/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The problem is that the APR code relies on the MSVC run-time being
>>> > consistent: as we have demonstrated, it's not.  It can and does report
>>> > c:\ in several circumstances.
>>> Yes, and so what?  This should be harmless... please indicate the bug
>>> that the VETOED code supposedly corrects?
>>> (And Mr. Committer, revert your vetoed code already.)
>> Why the rush to revert?  We're trying to understand the codebase here
>> to ensure we're making the right change rather than rushing to revert:
>> the testcases indicate a clearly false assumption in the APR runtime -
>> that drive letters are always upper-cased by the runtime.
> 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.

Er. I'm sorry I didn't revert it in under 24 hours, but like, I wasn't
just reading email and hanging out with my machine ready to revert a
commit right after I made it. Like i said earlier, I will try to get to
it tonight, we all have busy schedules, so don't lay down this bullshit
that its bad etiquette to not revert a commit as quickly as you would like.


View raw message