httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] ApacheHTTPD -- WIN32
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:12:36 GMT
From: "Mladen Turk" <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:34 AM

> Greetings,
> I'll try to change the approach a little bit :)
> This month I've posted a couple of add-ons, patches, proposals, etc... and
> for most of them didn't get the (even a 'f**k off')answer.
> Well, I don't mind but it would be nice to get some feedback.


  Only a few of us are attacking patches, and writing our own.  Can I offer some
observations and constructive criticizm that might help you (and other current
and potential contributors) out with navigating dev@httpd?  


  1. Even regulars don't get feedback till the break things.  This isn't
     a good thing, it just reflects the state-of-the-state in dev@httpd.
     Frankly, it p!ss*s me off too.  I try to follow and comment on threads
     that relate to what interests me, but my mental bandwidth sometimes 
     isn't sufficient to follow all the lists I track.

  2. Only a handful of us seem remotely interested in htdbm/dbmmangage (not
     the first time.)  Probably makes sense to drop mod_auth_db/dbm unless 
     some more developers are willing to comment.  Same scenario as mod_proxy,
     it was initially pulled from 2.0, mostly because nobody listened to even 
     the patches submitted to bugs or dev@httpd, never mind bug reports.

  3. Your idea of positing a suggestion here first is absolutely the right
     way to go, to avoid later frustration!!!  I have not forgotten the few
     we've discussed on list, they are in one of my trees.

Constructive (?) Criticizm on htpasswd;

  1. Your patch to htpasswd seems way overboard.  It makes it impossible to
     follow the growth of this utility from Apache 1.3 to 2.0, and that
     makes a mess for someone coming in later, trying to divine why "It worked
     in 1.3, why is 2.0 broken?".  Couldn't this be done less dramatically
     with some precision, to follow the original code?  [I've been guilty of
     this and had dozens of my early patches rejected, for exactly this reason.]

  2. I'm not clear why it was necessary to wipe out significant comments 
     about never suexec'ing it or adding your credit tag (note many of us have 
     contributed mega-amounts of code, we don't do so and I intend to embark on
     trying to pull out inappropriate credits, paying due attention to copyright
     and confirming credit was given in CHANGES and CVS.)  

     Companies contribute between a bit and oogles of developer $$$s to keep 
     moving Apache forward, but patches are credited to developers, not their
     employeers.  In fact, the only acceptable company tagline is your email 
     address, reflecting whatever email account the patch is mailed-from.

     CHANGES and CVS logs provide the credit where credit is due, please advise
     if I've ever shortchanged you due credit for your patches.  Eventually,
     reliable contributors are granted CVS access, then potentially Project
     Management membership, and finally they may be nomiated for ASF membership.
     These aren't handed out trivially, see about the process.

  3. Your patches do need review [I needed to bandaid the date calculation in
     your rotatelogs patch before committing.]  That takes some developer's
     time to do, and I've had issues finding enough time for a life, never mind
     all the very good patches to this list lately.

Those are really my only objections to committing your htpasswd changes as
posted to the list, it needs to be a cleaner patch, comments should be appropriate,
and I need free time to test.

Take John Sterling's patch yesterday morning.  One line, with a _very_ clear
explanation of what and why.  Committed in 10 minutes.  Take Aaron's patches,
very large, difficult to understand, but necessary to commit as a unit.  Took
weeks to get those reviewed, critiqued and committed.  Don't get downhearted
if big patches or new code takes time to thoroughly review.  mod_auth_ldap was
just made into a subproject for just that reason, many on this list feel there
hasn't been sufficient review to put that module into the main tree.

It's a struggle for contributors and committers to keep up with each other and
match each other's needs to work efficiently.  I'm sorry if you've been a bit
frustrated in your efforts, I hope others pick up on your patches and recognize
some aren't just "that win32 thing."

Thanks for your contributions thus far!!!


View raw message