httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew <and...@aaaaaaaa.demon.co.uk>
Subject voting...
Date Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:58:41 GMT

Voting +0	Sorry, I wasn't paying full attention.  Re-reading:

	http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/voting.html#patchvote

	I see that +0 is only a valid offer for 'actions', patches
	specifically being covered by a different ruling on what
	votes really mean.  So I get to choose +1 if I've:

         1.read the patch header to see what problem it addresses 
         2.successfully patched it into CURRENT 
         3.observed no bad side-effects resulting from the patch. 

	or I can choose -1:

	-1 is a veto on the patch. All vetos must come with an
	explanation of why the veto is appropriate.  A veto with no
	explanation is void. 

	Well, let me see.

	1)	I read the header and it's adding a functional
		enhancement, not correcting a bug.  Hadn't noticed that
		either, first time round.  It calls sprintf and writes out
		a 'long' using a %d, instead of a %ld. Does this matter?
	2)	Yeah, it patches clean.
	3)	Nothing explodes when I use the patch. (How do
		I test if printing a long using %d is giving
		erronious output?!)

Sooo, I guess it's gunna have to be -1.  Merely on account of it
being a functional enhancement and not a straight bug fix. Sorry.

Inidentally, theres nothing to stop you running your own set of
patches (functional enhancements, whatever) on top of 0.8.14.  I
know many of us are doing this already.  

Ho hum.

Ay.

Mime
View raw message