httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] "responsible party" for requests.
Date Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:04:23 GMT
Aidan Cully wrote:
> I should point out that my patch doesn't modify SuEXEC at all, and
> should not change any behaviour unless the admin adds a URIOwner
> directive in httpd.conf.

Well, if someone _does_ use it, then it _does_ modify how suEXEC
works, so the point is still valid. Plus, it changes the API (as
far as exportable functions).

> > Sometimes local hacks simply remain local. Just because something is
> > submitted is no guarantee that it'll be included.
> Of course not..  I've got no problem with my code not going into the
> tree.  I'm a bit annoyed at having to maintain local hacks, but that's
> not enough to get me to send mail to the list by itself..  What bothers
> me is that what I submitted was basically _ignored_ for a month.  Say
> what you want about the code, or how important it is for Apache..  But
> not saying anything just leaves me aimless.  See my point?

Yep. There _are_ other things going on at present (and the recent
past, as attested to by 1.3.6 being available) so that's one part
of the reason, but the absolute truth is that no one felt "motivated"
enough by the patch to follow through with it. No reflection on the
patch itself, or you or your coding ability, it's just that, I'm guessing,
no one saw any compelling need for it to be included. It's hard to
follow through on every submitted patch.

   Jim Jagielski   |||   |||
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

View raw message