apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: apr_token_* conclusions
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2015 04:12:26 GMT
The only question in my mind, after thinking about this all day, is how do
we (plural) de-escalate this immature behaviour between senior ASF
members?  If there was a time to fall on your own katana James, that most
recent post was it.

Let's cut the s*&t and just code some cool stuff?  If you are on that page,
quit apologizing.  If you are out to score some cool public posts, it might
be time to hang up that hat.  And it isn't specific to Jim, anyone who
complains that APR moves too slow wasn't hanging around here 12 yrs ago,
the moment it is time for a release, there will be the momentum for release.

Grow up everyone, this isn't httpd.  Let's code.
On Nov 30, 2015 06:15, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 27.11.2015 15:59, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In any case — I don't think anyone over at dev@s.a.o would object to
> >>> including those functions. We actually have a number of other, heh,
> >>> improvements on APR that we could "donate"; we just never really got
> >>> around to producing the necessary patches.
> >> Yeah, svn is in the same situation as httpd. There are
> >> some functions would "ideally" would exist in APR,
> >> but APR doesn't move "fast enough" to allow that to
> >> happen, so both projects start collecting APR-like
> >> kruft after awhile...
> >>
> >> It certainly would be nice if there was someway to address
> >> that...
> >
> > Uh, what I wrote is in no way intended to be a criticism of APR. Maybe
> > if people who think APR isn't moving fast enough spent their time
> > writing code here instead of writing mails about it, this "problem"
> > would just vanish. At least, that's my understanding of how open source
> > is supposed to work -- right, Jim? ;)
> Gosh! You are right! Gee whiz, I haven't had any substantial code added
> to APR since 1.5.1. Thanks for reminding me! I really feel completely
> and utterly unworthy to comment on or criticize APR in any meaningful
> way and I offer my heartfelt apologies to everyone on this thread
> for wasting their time on a thread which started off as a suggestion
> for a new function to be added to httpd but, I noted:
>     I propose a ap_strncasecmp/ap_strcasecmp which we should use.
>     Ideally, it would be in apr but no need to wait for that
>     to happen :)
> which, at least how I read it, implies code to be added to APR
> in the ideal case. But that is besides the point, as Brane so
> correctly says! Instead of writing emails about code to be
> added, we should instead be writing the code itself, which,
> of course, will be accepted in as-is with no discussion whatsoever,
> since, heck, that's kind of what's going on here, but as Brane
> reminds us all, such a thing is a problem that will magically
> disappear the more we write code!
> I propose that no message be allowed on the dev@apr list unless
> a 15-line patch or code contribution is attached. This will
> solve the nasty problem! In fact, maybe we should just shut down
> dev@apr since it encourages such unconstructive behavior as "writing
> emails" when we instead should be head's down cranking out code
> that may, or may not (usually not) be added and used before the
> end of the decade.

View raw message