Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jmarantz@google.com
 designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Joshua Marantz <jmarantz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:41:55 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAGKR+ECHR2mQWPfW9SuAdbH2ot+o4r8X+uGixqaORJ6tbkSy_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: apr_memcache.c patch
To: dev <dev@apr.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2539e2790d404cffc230a

--e89a8ff2539e2790d404cffc230a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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

--e89a8ff2539e2790d404cffc230a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div style>A few weeks ago I mailed a patch to=
 make all the apr_memcache functions obey a timeout that was previously onl=
y applied for mulgetp. =A0 Did I get the protocol for mailing a patch wrong=
? =A0It&#39;d be useful to get some dialog going about the patch.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>I have 2 follow-up patches as well: the fir=
st one fixes an unrelated bug in apr_memcache.c and the second, which I&#39=
;m working on now, adds a new API to set the timeout.</div><div style>
<br>
</div><div style>I&#39;m aware that=A0<a href=3D"https://issues.apache.org/=
bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51065">https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_b=
ug.cgi?id=3D51065</a> has an alternative mechanism for passing the timeout =
into the constructor but I found the mechanism it employed didn&#39;t work =
for me, and also I think it&#39;s better to add a new setter API rather tha=
n changing the constructor so that existing API users don&#39;t break on an=
 upgrade if they don&#39;t need the timeout.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>But I don&#39;t want to bother with these t=
wo follow-up patches until I get some response on the first one. =A0Should =
I mail it again? =A0Is this the right email address to use to propose patch=
es? =A0Or is there a more formal code review process?</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>-Josh</div><div style><br></div></div></div=
>

--e89a8ff2539e2790d404cffc230a--