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?