httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Patches patched... or something
Date Fri, 01 Mar 1996 17:45:22 GMT
> 
> At 08:21 AM 3/1/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >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. 
> 
> Okay, so anything else you put there, that doesn't automaticly compile
> on Linux, BSD, and/or SunOS we can veto?  Is this the new rule now? 
> 
> I'm not going get into an argument here... but as you say USE some
> common sense... how would I know what HPUX does, or does not have
> and I'm not just including it for my health here.... it's needed.  I tried using
> a hardcode approch, but as some other members said ( correctly I might
> add ) is that what's the point of removing a hard code for another hard code
> so I included paths.h which should point to the right location for each 
> system.  Now if you say that HP doesn't have paths then PLEASE patch
> my patch to where ever you think the TMP variable should point to, or
> give me access to your machine, so I can figure out where it goes.  
> 
> >And as for the log_ignore_cmd patch, there's still, as far as I know, 
> >Brian's outstanding admonation against including the feature, regardless 
> >of the patch itself. And the guidlines posted by Paul (yes, I got them) 
> >say that changes like that should be peer reviewed first. I just didn't 
> >feel comfortable applying the patch. That's all.
> 
> Who the hell made you the king of hill?  To say which patch can and 
> can't be included.... if you took it upon yourself to include the patches 
> from the for_apache_.xxxx directory, I don't think that gives you automatic
> veto power over any patch you don't like. 

Before somebody explodes, can I just point out that it is perfectly reasonable
for any member of the group to say that they don't want to apply a particular
patch. If none of the comitters wants to apply that patch, then perhaps the
non-comitters would have grounds for complaint, or perhaps the patch is not
worthy of application. I suppose that decision would be subject to a vote.

Of course, if that patch _does_ get applied, then others will, as you say,
have to sort out the consequences on their machines (and not by reversing the
patch without good reason, either).

Cheers,

Ben.

> 
> <Aram>
> --
> Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
> http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
> Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org
> 
> 

-- 
Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk
London, England.

Mime
View raw message