httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject voting
Date Thu, 08 Jan 1998 05:17:19 GMT
Oh P.S. Insert Dean's standard rant about how much a waste of time
preparing patches for voting, waiting for votes, and then committing them
is.  And how much it detracts from the productivity of the project as a
whole.  This has as much to do with the whole voting concept as it does
with the lack of active people who have "voting rights". 

Lately I'm moderately happy because a lot of folks are just giving my
stuff +1 on a once-over read, especially when it's for the 1.3 tree.  But
I still have to prepare patches to post, wait for votes, and then commit.
Whereas CVS is designed to be used in a commit-then-review fashion, and
we've got that wonderful cvs-to-mail gateway thing that lets us all see
the commits as they happen. 

I know for a fact there's a shitload more I would have done over the
summer if we didn't work in this manner.  Big patches are just not welcome
here, every time I post a non-trivial large patch I get complaints "wow
that's big, it's scary" and getting votes for them is like extracting
teeth.  So instead I waste time incrementally approaching a goal, or I
just don't do the work I want to do.  For a current example of this see
Martin's large EBCDIC patch which only I've voted on, and now it's out of
date and Martin will have to update it again before anyone else will vote
on it, and then folks will delay several weeks again, and it'll be out of
date again... 

We're the only free software project I'm aware of that works in this
braindead fashion.  I am completely envious of the freedom that folks on
other projects experience.  (In particular I track linux, squid, and some
freebsd development.  For linux and squid they have frequently development
releases, bugs are fixed quickly in the releases, features go in by the

Yes, if you move to this model then the current CVS HEAD doesn't always
work.  But, uh, so what?  If it doesn't work then fix it, or bitch at the
author and stick with out of date code for a day or two.  That's how every
other software project I've worked on behaves. 

You know, in those cases where I've complained about aspects of other
people's patches that bother me.  If we were in a commit-then-review
situation I would have just fixed what bothered me after you committed.
This saves time.  Words are not exact, code is exact. 



On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Me.  I never include myself on the Reviewed by line in commits of my own
> code.  That's implicit.  And yes, I forgot to include the reviewed by
> line.  But the votes all happened.
> Dean
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > dgaudet     98/01/07 19:16:50
> > > 
> > >   Modified:    src/modules/standard mod_include.c
> > >   Log:
> > >   switch from safe_copy to ap_cpystrn
> > > 
> > >   Revision  Changes    Path
> > 
> > I don't see the "reviewed by" line in this commit record, and I
> > only saw two votes in STATUS.  If we're not in lazy voting mode
> > (and Jim, the 1.3 RM, says we're note), I'm assuming I must have
> > missed something.  Who was the third +1?
> > 
> > #ken	P-)}
> > 

View raw message