httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@engelschall.com (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject The old old discussion... (was Re: unsigned host port)
Date Tue, 08 Apr 1997 06:59:42 GMT

In article <97040705364489@decus.org> you wrote:
> From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:

> >----------------------------
> >revision 1.93
> >date: 1997/03/29 03:40:34;  author: fielding;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> >Host port changed to unsigned short.
> >
> >Submitted by: Ken Coar, PR #276
> >Reviewed by: Roy Fielding, Chuck Murcko
> >----------------------------
> >
> >This change didn't seem to make it to the mailing list.  
> >The reason I bring it up is because mod_rewrite hasn't yet been updated:

>     I'm not sure what you mean.  I received a copy of the update notice
>     from apache-cvs.  The patch that went in didn't include mod_rewrite
>     by design, although that may have been a design error.  ;->

Correct, this is not Marcs fault. He included a hint for me that I should
include also a patch to mod_rewrite. And I immediately had done this: I've
incorporated this into mod_rewrite 3.0.3-dev.   The point of discussion is a
different one:

>     When I submitted the patch I *didn't* include the required change to
>     mod_rewrite, but flagged it for Ralf's attention.  He acknowledged
>     it, but I don't know if he made the change in his own copy and
>     didn't submit a patch to the group, or hasn't made it at all, or
>     what.

I've incorporated it on 29-Mar-1997 according to my ChangeLog.  But because we
committed mod_rewrite 3.0.2 the day before I wanted to spam the list again
with a 2-line patch for just 3.0.3. I wanted to wait for other things, so I
didn't immediately released 3.0.3. In the meantime I've changed things in the
documentation, etc.

>     As I recall, the major feeling was that, if mod_rewrite was to be
>     considered a regular part of the Apache package, the copy the
>     repository had to be considered the master, and Ralf's a copy
>     thereof, rather than the converse.  

<grin> Yes, sure, but how should I make the repository to be the master
without CVS access? Think about it. Without I had to do it in my version and
regularly summit [SYNC] patches to the list. Sorry, this is not my fault: I
wanted _TWO_ times access to CVS so I can directly maintain mod_rewrite in the
Apache repository, but at BOTH DISCUSSIONS the people finally thought that CVS
access is not really needed to provide an up-to-date copy.

So I maintain mod_rewrite in my private master source and only summit [SYNC]
patches _from time to time_ when there is enough stuff to commit.

** NO: I really don't want to start the discussion again about
** CVS access. I'm really lazy to discuss this point any more.
** No more discussion from my side! If people really think it is 
** not neccessary then thats the problem of these people. 
** I've already voted for CVS access two times in the past and
** never received it. Perhaps I'm a too boring or bad hacker 
** for the Apache Group. I don't know... ;-)

>     However, that never seemed to
>     happen.  Or perhaps I'm misremembering.  The question was
>     complicated by the fact that the latest mod_rewrite is always
>     backward-compatible.

backward-compatible? To what? I don't see the point of discussion
here, sorry. Please explain which fact you exactly mean.

>     I can't explain why, but when I've had something that needed
>     application to mod_rewrite, I *haven't* been including it myself but
>     just flagging it for Ralf's attention, and he's typically applied it
>     in a subsequent patch submitted for the module.  {Sigh}  Mea culpa.
>     I'll be better..

Yes, this is not the fault of you, it is the consequence of the CVS access and
the fact that I don't wanted to start a "[SYNC] mod_rewrite 3.0.3" just for
this simple 2-line patch.

>     So: what *is* the story with where the master mod_rewrite lives?

Simple:

- The master should be the Apache repository and the
  primary maintainer should be RSE. Anyone can submit patches and when RSE
  really thinks it is a bad one he can vote it with -1. Else they get
  committed by any one of the list. But RSE don't want work this way unless he
  also has access to the CVS. Because I don't want to be the primary
  maintainer of a piece of code while I don't have direct access to this piece
  of code.

- Because RSE is still not able to maintain mod_rewrite directly at the Apache
  repository, he maintains it privately at his own closed site. And to bring
  the repository up-to-date from time to time he has to submitt "[SYNC]
  mod_rewrite 3.0.x" patches with the hope that after voting someone actually
  commits them. But this sync-patches occur only when there is really enough
  stuff because it is silly release new versions for every little patch.

Think about this situation and what is better.
I think the first one. But... :-(

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message