httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Richards <p.richa...@elsevier.co.uk>
Subject Re: Voting Summary
Date Wed, 06 Dec 1995 10:47:45 GMT
In reply to Randy Terbush who said
> 
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Paul Richards wrote:
> > 
> > > On the 1.1b1 stugg, why not just do what all the free BSD projects do and
> > > have an Apache-current, which is never frozen and is constantly at the
> > > cutting edge of development which everyon sticks their new ideas into.
> > 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this extremely mess up our system 
> > of patch-and-vote? It wouldn't give the rest of the group any say as to 
> > what any one person is doing to the code.
> 
> I agree with Alexei's comments here. I've been tracking a -current OS
> for about 2 years now. It is a mess (if not impossible) to track back
> to when an errant change was made, etc. For a source tree as big as
> an OS, a patch system is difficult to pull off. Luckily, our source
> tree is not that big... yet.

Not if you have access to the CVS tree :-)

Hmm, I think the patch and vote thing stinks anyway which is why I'm not
contributing any code. The changes I want to make (cleaning up all the
#ifdef's for a start) will touch every file, include some new ones and
remove some old ones. It's *extremely* unlikely I'd get it right for
every OS in my first attempt and the patch and vote system falls
flat on its face trying to do things like this.

It took us something like 2-3 weeks to get 3 or 4 lines changed for
just one #ifdef last time because the patch didn't work for everyone and
it was voted down.

A patch system works when the changes are just that, patches.

-- 
  Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd.
  Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

Mime
View raw message