httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 CHANGES
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:58:00 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:10:12PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:02 PM +1100 Stas Bekman 
>><> wrote:
>>>So if absolutely anything added to the dev branch must have a vote
>>>for before merging back to the stable branch, I stand corrected and
>>>will make sure that this won't happen again in the future. I
>>>thought that the common sense should be applied when judging what
>>>can be backported without the vote.
>>Heh.  The entire reason for the vote is to prevent 'common sense' 
>>from interfering with the stability of the tree.  -- justin
> Bah. That's insanity. A bug fix is a bug fix. We never took votes for bug
> fixes for 1.3, and I see no reason to start now.
> Feature changes? Sure, we voted for those.
> Seriously, people. If there is a bug, then it should be fixed no matter
> where it lies. Sure, there can be some waffling based on *how* a bug is
> fixed, and hopefully people will know when to ask.
> What's the problem with fixing a bug. Really?

We've had problems in the past with folks rewriting major portions of 
the server to fix relatively insignificant bugs and breaking major 
function across several releases as a result.  The rewrites were 
generally NOT posted as a patch on the dev list prior to being committed 
and that is the real problem (ie, I can deal with a patch that is not 
quite right the first go'round provided folks were give an opportunity 
to review it before it goes in).

Once code is committed, it is a difficult to get it out without bruising 
egos and causing waves of bad mojo.  Been there, done that and threw 
away the snow globe.

I am not going to cite examples so don't ask because it's not productive 
to go digging in the past.


View raw message