httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Patch review: Re: [PATCH] hook based filters take 4
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:04:17 GMT
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 10:30:42AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > 
> > Do either of you have working code for your approach yet?


> > If both of you are stepping away from the discussion for
> > a while, cool;

I'm not at all. I believe mine is *complete* for this step and should go
into the code base. Ryan does not agree, but I believe his concerns are
unfounded. I just got up recently, and haven't had the hour to spend writing
up yet another mail to explain why his concerns are not applicable.

> > but I don't think it's fair for either
> > one to step away and say "-1 on you doing anything until
> > I come back."

I haven't made such a declaration. I want to see my patch committed asap,
rather than have to continue spending hours reviewing Ryan's patches,
writing those reviews, and addressing the misplaced concern about my patch.

> > If one or the other of you has code that
> > works, I would like to see the patch for it go through
> > RTC, regardless of the progress of the alternative.

I posted the final last night under the subject "[PATCH] final: link-based
filtering". Theoretically, it is out there for RTC. What should I do to
clarify this, so that people really will do RTC?

> > If the alternative comes up with working code, then it
> > should go through RTC as well.  Then let the best approach
> > win.

Ryan has posted his and I've reviewed it extensively. There are still some
fundamental problems with it, which I have explained. Conversely, I can
demonstrate that my patch does not have any of these problems.

Truthfully? Yes, I'd like to see input from other people. I'd like to get a
balanced review of my patch. I don't think that this has been happening.

> > And if someone else wants to take either (or both)
> > and work something up for RTC -- even if it's currently
> > considered "Greg's patch" or "Ryan's patch" -- while the
> > original proposer is away, that's cool too.
> Both Ryan and Greg has proposed patches, both of which appear to
> be like 90-95% ``there''. It's more an issue of approach and
> assumptions behind the patches and implementation. 

I consider my patch to be 100% for this *step* in the process. I have
identified further steps that can be taken in the near term, mid-term, and
long-term. Those steps are kind of scattered about, but I'm quite happy to
pull them together into a development timeline / steps if people need to see


Greg Stein,

View raw message