httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: Compile failure
Date Sun, 17 May 1998 16:24:49 GMT
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 17 May 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > 
> > > So fix it. I get to fix it every time someone breaks it on Win32 (well,
> > > me or one of the other Win32 developers), what makes you think it should
> > > be different when it is the other way around?
> > 
> > Because you have access to a Unix platform to test it.
> Hmmm ... and who doesn't have access to a Win32 platform?

Most people, AFAIK.  I, for example, don't have easy access to one.  I do,
however, have easy access to a Unix box (ie. taz) no matter what I were to
run everywhere else and so do you. 

> > It is just rude to break the tree on most platforms and not care when you
> > have access to be sure it works.
> It isn't a matter of not caring, it is a matter of division of labour. I
> don't complain that people break Win32, I just fix it, because I
> understand that they prefer to focus on their area of
> interest/competence. Insisting that I should make it work on platforms
> X, Y and Z "because I can" is an unreasonable requirement on me. OK, if
> I was making some stylistic change, then maybe you could reasonably
> insist that I make it as cross-plaform as is possible, but in this case
> I was fixing a bug. It would've been nice if I'd had the time to make it
> work on all platforms, but I didn't, so there it is.

It isn't a matter of one platform that is being broken, it is a matter of
only _working_ on one platform.  Essentially what you did is added a while
bunch of code specific to one platform, breaking everything else in the

You added a bunch of win32 specific stuff, then are telling someone else
that if they care about any other platform they had better figure out all
the win32 crap to see what the hell to fix to make it compile.

Not very impressive. 

View raw message