httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <and...@aaaaaaaa.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: Patches
Date Mon, 01 Jul 1996 15:25:30 GMT
For the record.  I don't mind if the latest version of mod_cern_meta.c
v 0.1.0 isn't accepted for the 1.1 distribution.  0.1.0 is a complete
module to replace the previous module (not a patch) and hasn't been
tested by anyone but me.  The previous version of the module is
know to work without problems although it is not the most efficient
solution.

Has there been any discussion about what constitutes a sensible
approach to release/test.  Has anyone said 'code freeze, 2 weeks
without bug reports and then release'.  If not, may I offer it as
a suggestion?

Did anyone else get screwed by FreeBSD's -stable tree 'last minute
modifications' last week.  *sigh*.

Ay.

> Jim Jagielski writes:
>  > As a general trouble maker, let me see if I have this right.
>  > 
>  >    Patch A: Changes things like HAS_GMTOFF to HAVE_GMTOFF and is
>  >     derided loud and long as being too much too late. Patch
>  >     removed.
>  > 
>  >    Patch B: Involves some heavy-duty changes to mod_cern_meta.c
>  >     as well as a semi-substantial change to the way the
>  >     module works (from per-server to per-directory). It is
>  >     added "much" later that Patch A. The resultant outcry?
>  >     One very nice message stating "isn't this kinda big?"
>  >     Patch remains.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Is something wrong here?
> 
> Fair point in my opinion. Are we actually in code freeze now? This last
> patch went in days before a release is supposed to be cut, exactly how
> much testing is it going to get?

Mime
View raw message