httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <>
Subject Re: Vote change...
Date Wed, 30 Aug 1995 20:10:59 GMT
>    From: Randy Terbush <>
>    Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:00:50 -0500 (CDT)
>    Precedence: bulk
>    Reply-To:
>    It seems that in order to veto a patch, you are at least
>    obligated to apply it.
> As I said before, it does not apply cleanly against 0.8.11

This patch was created against 0.8.11x. From mail last week, you
stated that there were "no code differences" between the two.
I suppose it died on the copyright changes?

>    For the reasons I stated, this *needs* to get in .12 so that it
>    can be tested to avoid possible problems in the next round. There
>    are some other patches to conf.h and util.c which could be
>    conflicts. As I said, I would be happy to roll this release if
>    it would make it any easier on you.
> Whoa!  As I have already said, the way this process is supposed to
> work is that people who are going to vote on this patch as a patch to
> 0.8.12 are supposed to test it --- and that testing is supposed to
> prevent problems.  Saying that you need this patch in .12 in order to
> get it tested is equivalent to saying that people who vote on it in
> future releases will act in bad faith.

It is vertually impossible to address these portability issues 
without expecting the group to do some verification that it
works. As it stands, we *know* that it doesn't work for the
entire group. We're trying to correct that. If we don't add this
patch, we *still won't know.

I've made it clear how I feel about this. Time for someone else
to do the same.

View raw message