httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r230592 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x: CHANGES STATUS modules/proxy/proxy_http.c
Date Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:54:45 GMT
At 05:28 PM 8/6/2005, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:29:13PM -0000, William Rowe wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Sat Aug  6 14:29:05 2005
>> New Revision: 230592
>> URL:
>> Log:
>>   As much as it pains me, seriously, it seems that reviewing the re-backport
>>   of this code was too illegible for review, so it seems we will need to
>>   re-review a fresh backport from httpd trunk.  
>That patch went through the normal 2.0.x review process and received 
>three +1s and no vetoes.  You absolutely cannot come along a few months 
>later and say "oh, actually, -1" and rip stuff out that you now decide 
>you don't like.

It received 3 +1 votes, a slim review.  It was never released, 
so it's not in fact 'done'.  If unreleased changes are incorrect, 
they need to be fixed, or needs to be reverted.

>  You missed the chance to veto

How so?

You can't veto a release.  You can veto code; certainly if there
is a 'deadline' it doesn't start until we begin talking about 
released code, and that isn't the case here.

> -- if you want to change 
>the state of the 2.0.x tree now then you need to go through 
>the review process like everyone else does.

I'll respectfully disagree, but I have to ask...

Why do you bring this up now when I mentioned that I had vetoed
the change a good three weeks ago, in STATUS, and advised on
list that it would be reverted?  

In any case, I am bringing to STATUS a replacement that is more 
correct, and not removing any of the credit well earned by Jeff 
Trawick for the original backport (it's just not living in CHANGES 
at this moment.)

My 2c - the proxy code is NOT subject to enough review since it's
major refactoring from 1.3 to 2.0.  I seriously believe that not
enough dev@ contributors either understand or care enough about
the code to consider it even maintained.  

Jeff's comment was dead to right when he originally wrote this 
backport, that the patches aren't moving cleanly from trunk to 
2.0.x.  I couldn't follow the original commit at the time, it 
took me over 60 hours to completely review the original backport 
and reconsider what needed to be done.

On a friendly note, Joe, you expressed a concern about a possible 
segfault regression in trunk; I don't see it in either trunk nor 
in 2.0.x with all proposed patches applied.  If you wouldn't mind
posting your backtrace I'd much appreciate it.


View raw message