httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aram Mirzadeh <>
Subject Re: patch - vote
Date Sun, 11 Feb 1996 07:45:16 GMT
> 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
> it.

Yes it is unreasonable, if you had no help from the rest of the group.  But
that's the point of the vote system isn't it?  I didn't release the patch
so I can't go start changing stuff around adding lines to it and releasing
it again... that's the authors job.  All I can say is IF it patched correctly,
and IF it compiled on my system, and IF I think it's a resable thing to be 
added to the system.  If the 2nd part failed, all I can do is let the others
know this patch doesn't compile... (period!)  Now if the author can see why
then fine, either he can just release another version of the patch, or wait
til the next build.  

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

Fine!  If a patch doesn't work for the HP48, and we're going to announce 
that HP48 is now apache-capable, then YESS! DEFENETLY VETO EVERY DAMM 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.

If I could get them to work, then I would have and sent the patch back to 
the author for re-release.  I didn't go that far, and maybe I should have
but one thing, has nothing to do with the other... The original patch still
gets a -1.


Aram Mirzadeh
MIS Manager				      Apache httpd team member
Qosina Corporation

You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
                -- Dean Martin

View raw message