Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" <bugs@httpd.apache.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: bugs@httpd.apache.org
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 38034]  - PUT If-None-Match: "*" failures
In-Reply-To: <bug-38034-7868@http.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
Message-Id: <20071220171324.D0764714276@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:13:24 -0800 (PST)

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG�
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38034>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND�
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38034


------- Additional Comments From tolsen@alum.mit.edu  2007-12-20 09:13 -------
(In reply to comment #14) 
> I'm not qualified to provide advice on that question. But please note that the
> patch can easily be modified if this assumption turns out not to be valid. So
> the only thing preventing this bug from being closed is making this decision.

(Ok, my last reply was me venting.  Here is my more productive response ;-)

The patch may be easily modified to any particular state, but deciding on that state is the hard part ;-)  
In this case, if the assumption is not valid (which I do not believe it is), then we must decide on how we 
signify that a resource does not exist (i.e. is null).  The email thread I pointed you to discusses that 
issue somewhat.  Chris Darroch proposed NON_EXTANT_RESOURCE or NO_RESOURCE.  Paritosh had 
already submitted a patch with "resource-exists" but then later agreed with Chris on using 
NO_RESOURCE (a trivial change to the patch).   Then in the next month, after discussing this bug with 
Paul Querna at ApacheCon, Paritosh attempted to revive the thread and proposed another possible 
approach endorsed by Paul.  No one replied to Paritosh's email.

At that point, Paritosh and I decided not to invest more time in creating and testing yet another patch 
which may not make it into Apache.   We're not opposed to doing so in the future, but we'd like to get 
our own automated testing infrastructure setup specifically for our patches to Apache (there are more 
to come).  Testing that mod_dav_fs still works by hand for every patch (and every time a patch needs to 
be changed) is time consuming.  

Right now, we are under increasing pressure to tend more to our non-open-source-community tasks 
at our company.  We hope to devote more time to pushing fixes for bugs such as this one in the near 
future.  Hopefully, your and our efforts will not be in vain.

btw, please vote for this bug if you haven't done so already.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org