httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Subject Re: Vote change...
Date Wed, 30 Aug 1995 15:23:23 GMT
   From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
   Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:31:39 -0500 (CDT)
   Precedence: bulk
   Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

   As I said in previous mail...

   The current version is known to work. It is next to impossible to
   integrate portability changes without some adjustments. Since
   this release is not going to be public, I don't see what the big
   deal is about accepting it so that we can work the kinks out of
   the next patch round.

A few points ---

1) The version of the patch I see right now on Hyperreal won't even
   apply cleanly against 0.8.11; it appears to have been built against
   either .10 or .11x... again, this gives me the feeling that this
   patch still needs work.

2) As I pointed out before, we are supposed to be voting on the
   patches to be applied --- indeed, the point of the peer review and
   voting process is supposed to be "working the kinks out" *before*
   stuff goes into the server.  If you want me to start throwing in
   half-baked stuff in hopes of working out the kinks, you are, in
   effect, asking me to abandon the peer review process, because this
   patch, in its *current* version, has not been reviewed.

3) *You* said this morning that if this morning's version didn't work,
   it would have to be held over for the next round.  Well, it didn't.

[Randy goes on... ]

   This patch does not create a problem that anyone in this group
   should not be able to deal with. How about a little flexibility
   on this Rob?

If what you mean by "flexibility" is that I should toss things into a
release which have not been peer-reviewed, then that's what I used to
be doing --- and people wanted voting instead.  Now, you have votes
--- but a voting process is meaningless if people do not have the
opportunity to find out what they are voting on, and in this case,
they have not.

(You can't actually be asking for a process in which I am allowed, and
indeed required, to indulge everyone's whims regarding patches which
"look good to them", and "probably won't cause trouble", except for my
own?) 

rst

Mime
View raw message