httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Ames <grega...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 CHANGES
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:56:04 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:55 PM -0800 Greg Stein 
> <gstein@lyra.org> wrote:
> 
>> And remember: this *is* source control. If somebody commits a bug
>> fix and people want to shoot it down, then we can revert it. But
>> assuming correctness and committing the fix is hella better than
>> gating every single little change.
> 
> 
> We have lazy consensus on the unstable tree (2.1).  I agree with you 
> 100% in the context of httpd-2.1 - go commit first - break the tree - we 
> can revert changes easily as we have no expectations of stability there.
> 
> But, I don't trust anyone's 'common sense' to know whether the most 
> trivial fix broke anything or whether a bug fix is 'right.'  Yes, it 
> means gating changes on stable (2.0), but that's a price I'm willing to 
> see us pay.  I'd hope our code quality and stability improves because of 
> that.  -- justin

Well said, Justin.

Most of us have committed bug fixes with the best of intentions which were not 
quite complete or had unintended side effects.  I certainly have - the deferred 
write pool stuff in core_output_filter comes to mind.  Letting the fixes age a 
bit in the unstable tree reduces the probability of unpleasant surprises 
happening in the stable tree, at least for mainline code.  We can be extra 
diligent about reviewing/testing changes that we know are not mainline.

Greg


Mime
View raw message