httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] CGI: script command line and win32
Date Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:42:26 GMT
Paul Sutton wrote:
> The trouble with voting without testing is that the vote may be for a
> variety of reasons, for example
>   -- I trust this person, so their patch'll probably work ok
>   -- I like this feature and want to see it get into Apache but it'll need
>      three +1's so here's mime anyway
>   -- This bug should be fixed
> I don't think a vote without a code test should be counted as a valid
> vote. Whenever I vote on a patch it has been tested on both Unix and
> (usually) Win32 and works as described. It also means I've had a look at
> the code and don't think it'll impact other functionality. All of this
> takes time (especially getting it onto Win32 and testing it) so my votes
> tend to be later than others. Of course it would be much easier for me to
> +1 the patches based on whether I think the feature is good or whether I
> think the bug in question deserves to be fixed, but that isn't the way
> that the review process should work.

If I vote without testing, I make it clear that that's what I've done. I
agree that what that +1 means may not be obvious, but in my case, it
means that I agree that the patch addresses something that needs
addressing, and that I'm confident that it will work (having read it

A conceptual +1 means that I'm not confident that it will work.

Whether these should count towards the required 3 is another question,
and as I understand it, they shouldn't. However, they do indicate that I
at least support the patch, even if I don't have time to do a proper
review. Better than silence, I feel.



Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|
and Technical Director|Email: |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG"

View raw message