Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) id CAA00244; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) with ESMTP id CAA00240; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:19:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA26160 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:18:42 GMT Received: from cadair.elsevier.co.uk by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:19:09 +0000 Received: from tees.elsevier.co.uk (tees.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.60]) by cadair.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA24257; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:18:52 GMT Received: (from dpr@localhost) by tees.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) id KAA03320; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:17:26 GMT To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Cc: jim@jaguNET.com (Jim Jagielski) Subject: Re: snprintf() References: <199701070313.VAA19904@sierra.zyzzyva.com> From: Paul Richards Date: 07 Jan 1997 10:17:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: Randy Terbush's message of Mon, 06 Jan 1997 21:13:04 -0600 Message-ID: <57u3ot23ii.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> Lines: 37 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.30 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Randy Terbush writes: > I would vote to include an snprintf() in Apache and use it to fix the > overflow problem. > Well, I made my concerns known privately but since the concensus is to continue adding features then I'll make my feeling known more widely. We're not in code freeze guys, not by even the most flexible of definitions. We're adding features daily and making considerable changes to the code. It may seem like they're all innocuous and easily understood but I'll state again that "if we understood all the changes we made to the code there would never be any bugs in the first place". You can only be sure that a beta cycle shakes out bugs if at each release you make less changes to the code, only fixing things that are genuinally broken. We're making more changes to the code between beta releases than we were during the development stages! My gut feeling is that the beta cycle has invigorated everyone again and we're finding lots of potential problems with the code. This suggests that we weren't really ready for a release and that we weren't really focussed on determining this objectively when we decided to enter a beta cycle. My thinking now is that we should put all this new stuff in and then extend the beta cycle for another month. Otherwise we're going to release with barely tested code and the inevitable 1.2.1 will have to be done to fix the bug reports that start coming in when a full release results in *much* wider use. -- Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor) Elsevier Science TIS online journal project. Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155