httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Richards <>
Subject Re: I *don't* want Paul's style guide.
Date Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:23:51 GMT
In reply to Robert S. Thau who said
> I also note with displeasure that you are now referring to your
> "KNF"-based style drafts as "the current doc", even though there is no
> consensus in the group on the use of a style guide based on that
> document, and so it is *not* current Apache policy.  If, in the
> future, you could refer to these things as "my KNF-based style
> drafts", or some such locution which doesn't seem to give them a
> quasi-official status which they do not possess, that would helpfully
> clarify matters.

This is just plain silly, you seem to have some hangup on the fact that
I picked an existing doc and started revising it rather than writing
something from scratch. If I delete all the stuff that isn't yet agreed
will that make you happy, just means more work since someone will then
have to type the examples back in later. I've not said anywhere that it
is Apache policy and it's no longer a KNF document and nowhere does it
claim to be. It's a *discussion* document, make your points, await the
discussion and then review the next draft, that's generally how things
work and if we started from scratch the same thing would take place. We'd
all end up checking with the current doc anyway to see which bits we
haven't yet addressed in our "new" proposal.

The "bad advice" are things *you've* raised objections to and you
seem to be getting up tight about the fact that there are things
in it that you disagree with. Only some parts of it are fully agreed
on as yet and no-one has said that the rest of it is policy at this
time and they won't become policy until we've all had our say. As
others, including myself raise objections those sections get changed.
They wouldn't even have come to our attention if we didn't have a
doc to discuss.

You've raised some issues in the current draft, I've noted them. I've raised
some issues, only Ben's commented so far. When there's something on the
table to vote on regarding the current issues I'll do another revision.
Simply telling me you don't like bits is getting us nowhere, call for a
vote on the specific issues and I'll modify the thing based on the
new consensus. Despite what you may think, I don't believe the document is
wrong on any issues where a vote has actually taken place, it simply contains
a lot of issues that have not yet been discussed at all and I see no
point in just deleting them when some of them may actually end up being
agreed on and for others a simple editing job will bring them into line.
If you can point to anything in the doc where a vote has taken place and
I haven't updated it accordingly then I will certainly do so.

If someone wants to write something from scratch and present that then that's
fine by me, I can get on with other things and just take part in the
discussion rather than having to collate all the comments and revise

How about actually discussing some of the points being raised, I've made my
comments on the issues you've raised some of which I agreed with and
others I'm not 100% sure about either way.

  Paul Richards, Originative Solutions Ltd.
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

View raw message