httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <>
Subject Re: patch - vote
Date Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:02:32 GMT
> >>  -1 72a.mod_imap_overhaul This didn't work for me... I had to patch it in by
> >>  			 hand, and then it complained about index being 
> >>  			 redeclared. 
> > 
> > Sorry, but I don't think this is criteria to veto a patch. It's impossible
> > to make changes that are guaranteed to work on every OS that you *don't*
> > have access to. If it's a showstopper compile problem, then we need to
> > be flexible enough to accept a last minute patch to fix the problem.
> It certainly is criteria for a veto -- producing a valid patch is not
> an OS problem.  Find the problem (if there is one), modify the patch,
> and move it to 72b.  That is why there is no deadline on patches,
> only patch votes.
> However, when someone does veto, they need to provide enough diagnostic
> information to find the problem.

Com'on Roy. Producing a valid patch for an OS I don't have access to
is unreasonable. The errors Aram reports are a Linux issue that is
probably easily fixed once someone finds where Linux decided to put

So if this set of patches blows chunks on my "Somebitchin-OS" machine
running on my HP48 and I veto every patch....

The way I see it, if I can't make'em work, then this version is not
supported on my platform. All I'm suggesting is that we apply a little
bit of interpretation to this process since we have a load of patches that
we need to get applied.

View raw message