httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Kutschker <Martin.T.Kutsch...@blackbox.net>
Subject Re: Query: bugs 8712 and 10156
Date Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:34:06 GMT
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 04:48:43 -0700
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Query: bugs 8712 and 10156
Message-ID: <20020624044843.I22901@apache.org>

> A substantial number of the developers spend a lot of time working on
> the bug database. The key here is that PRs need to be written well
> to help us figure out what the problem is. Poorly-written PRs are
> very frustrating to work with - they will usually get ignored.

I see. This is what I wrote (bug 8122):

: SUBJECT: SSLMutex option settings not honoured
:
: With the SSLMutex option the user could (in 1.3.x) ask for file based
: or semaphore based locking. Now mod_ssl asks apr for the default
: mechanism. Which is not a bad thing, but the option values should
: reflect what is provided.
: 
: I suggest using the same options as for the AcceptMutex option or
: using a backward compatible style:
:
: sem = sysvsem
: file: = flock | fcntl (whatever is preferred on the platform)

I thought it was good (enough). To clarify:

Even if the users sets SSLMutex to "file", mod_ssl may use semaphores. That is bogus (and
IMHO well described by the subject).

> The key to remember is that none of us are directly paid to work
> on Apache. We're all volunteers here and we try to do the best
> that we can.

I do know this very well and appreciate your work very much. Let me thank you for all your
efforts.

As said before, my posting was not meant as an accusation. It was just my impression that
it is better to post a patch than to file a bug (even with patch) if you want to get attention.
But never mind. Now I know and will improve my bug reporting style.

Masi 

Mime
View raw message