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 Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:23:34 GMT
At 08:39 PM 8/6/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>On 8/6/05, <> 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.
>It looks to me that we have lost our second of two chances to go
>through a stepwise, single-problem/single-solution approach to
>resolving the issues with this code, even after multiple comments
>stating that mixing that set of changes was undesired.  

The problem Jeff, is that you and Joe didn't state a specific
preference that 'I'm -1 to x and y, +1 to n and z'.  Patches are
a lousy method for incorporating layered multiple changes.  SVN
is a good method, and I've always been happy to commit these
fixes layer-by-layer as I'd done in trunk/.  I think we should
have followed Jim's sage advice and created a branch, and I'll
do so now.

>It isn't impossible to move forward from this point, but I don't 
>understand why we're still in big-patch mode after those previous 

This is a fair question, so I'll turn it back around.  How wasn't
171205 a 'big patch' :-?  But in all seriousness...

As I reached the wrong conclusions on voting by following the
guidelines.html rather than voting.html, I'll put this back to
you; would you rather I recommit 171205 for you, or do you prefer
we look at a fresh backport.  I am fine with either way, and have
it fixed shortly.  It's totally up to you if you want to ack my
veto of the backport, or nak it and I'll undo the damage.  

Mi culpa,


View raw message