Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63307 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2003 15:54:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63247 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 15:53:59 -0000 Message-ID: <3E5E3514.2090607@apache.org> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:56:04 -0500 From: Greg Ames User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 CHANGES References: <20030225233355.65364.qmail@icarus.apache.org> <3E5CB390.8090901@attglobal.net> <3E5D63B4.9090503@stason.org> <2147483647.1046279412@[10.0.1.15]> <20030226195511.A21189@lyra.org> <2147483647.1046290330@[10.0.1.15]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:55 PM -0800 Greg Stein > 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