httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <hart...@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject Re: patch - vote
Date Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:01:42 GMT

Randy wrote: 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > This attiude is abhorrant. Remember what we are voting on. We are not 
> > voting on whether or not a patch is 'good', we are not voting on whether 
> > a feature is needed, or should be included. We are not voting on what you 
> > can put in your server.
> 
> Geez... I think it's Rob's turn to be the bad boy....

:-)

> All I am asking is that we try to be a bit more flexible in accepting
> changes to patches that allow them to compile on platforms that the
> author does not have access to. I'm not even the author of the problem
> patches (this time) but seeing the number we have, holdovers could
> become a problem.
> 
> That's it. Generally a positive attitude I feel...

Yup.

Remember folks, we have a week to vote (and change votes!!!!). Everyone
has a right to veto, and a right to stick to the veto for as long as they
put up a reasonable argument to block a patch. When the dust settles on 
this weekend's votes and vetos, we can look at addressing any of the
problems that have come to light and lobby anyone who has vetoed a patch.

...don't assume any vetos are engraved in stone. Let's get some fixes
to the problems.

n.b. closing the patch dir last Friday was a way to deter (not prevent)
new patches appearing. Any new patches that appear shouldn't assume that
enough people will have time to check them. It's also fair (IMO) to veto
a last minute patch because not enough time has been given to check it.


rob

Mime
View raw message