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: Patches patched... or something
Date Fri, 01 Mar 1996 17:54:11 GMT
> Sure. People. But people isn't me. And I refuse to patch a patch to Apache
> that makes it not compile on my system, and probably dozens of others.
> (HP-UX doesn't have <paths.h>, SunOS doesn't have <paths.h>. BSDI and
> Linux do, but at that's only half the systems I have access to.) If you
> want to patch it, or get someone else to patch it, be my guest. But I'll
> just have to remove the line and then the patch will be useless. 

I just re-read this and it's a bit of a funny case given my previous reply
since the person who submitted the patch clearly had it working on their
box but the person who was to put it into cvs found that it wouldn't work
for them so didn't commit it.

I think this is a boundary case of moving from one scheme to the other :-)

Hmm, even with cvs people will still submit patches and those patches aren't
going to work on every box first time. I think the rule would have to be
that submitted patches are looked at by people running the same platform
and if it works as advertised it can be committed so that as many people
as possible can use it and make sure it's portable. If it doesn't even work
on the box it was intended for then it can be returned to the submitter with
comments stating what's wrong. I don't think it would be fair, as in this case,
for someone to submit a patch and then have it held up because the person 
reviewing it couldn't get it to work on their box when it works fine on
others. 

Mime
View raw message