apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Marantz <jmara...@google.com>
Subject apr_memcache.c patch
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:41:55 GMT
Hi,

A few weeks ago I mailed a patch to make all the apr_memcache functions
obey a timeout that was previously only applied for mulgetp.   Did I get
the protocol for mailing a patch wrong?  It'd be useful to get some dialog
going about the patch.

I have 2 follow-up patches as well: the first one fixes an unrelated bug in
apr_memcache.c and the second, which I'm working on now, adds a new API to
set the timeout.

I'm aware that https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51065 has
an alternative mechanism for passing the timeout into the constructor but I
found the mechanism it employed didn't work for me, and also I think it's
better to add a new setter API rather than changing the constructor so that
existing API users don't break on an upgrade if they don't need the timeout.

But I don't want to bother with these two follow-up patches until I get
some response on the first one.  Should I mail it again?  Is this the right
email address to use to propose patches?  Or is there a more formal code
review process?

-Josh

Mime
View raw message