httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r230592 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x: CHANGES STATUS modules/proxy/proxy_http.c
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:36:36 GMT
At 01:15 PM 8/7/2005, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:54:45PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
>
>> 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?  
>
>Because you putting random crap in STATUS is meaningless.  The R-T-C 
>process under which the 2.0.x tree is maintained is not.

Ahhh, so your crap in STATUS is called "process", while my crap
in STATUS is called "random crap"?  If you didn't agree with my
ability to veto this unreleased, already committed patch you
were welcome to add 2c, your choice of denomination, when I had
changed STATUS.  And I would have looked around two weeks ago
and seen that a late veto was invalid. And I'm agreeing with you, 
after looking at voting.html, which goes back to 1996.  I don't 
agree with the policy, as this patch hasn't 'left' Apache yet, but 
I agree the policy is clear.

So feel free to cut the crap and start talking to the code, your
comments and attitude have been way out of bounds.

Bottom line; trunk/ had diverged too far from 2.0.x/ - comparing
proxy_http to mod_proxy_http was no longer possible, making it
too difficult to see the changes simply.  You are asking to play
hand-me-a-rock, so I'm pelting you with 25 of them.  But if there
is anything you don't like at this point, I'm so thoroughly
disgusted with the state of proxy, and the fact that the HTTP
request and response vulnerability reports, from very early on,
interested way too few folks of our security@httpd team, that 
you are welcome to pick up the resulting boulder and lug it 
around yourself, if you prefer I not svn cp the resulting history 
back to httpd-2.0 after 3 +1's.  Please don't even bother asking 
me to bring you any more rocks, this has cost me dear in sleep
and energy that should have been spent elsewhere.

If anyone considers reviewing each of those 25 commits individually
to be sufficient to ensure the new code is proper, I challenge them
to look at the resulting overall code.  It's the small incremental
reviews that let the junk which has accumulated keep piling up.
When blindly +1'ing patches, it's good to read more than 3 lines
back and 3 lines forward.  This is why I (should have earlier)
vetoed Jeff's patch; what he did was cool, but the propagated 
mistakes in CL/TE elections and other issues became a bigger mess 
with the addition of the new three-mode body feature.

Anyways, I trust both you and Jeff find the incremental layers
I've committed satisfactory for review; I didn't commit them in
the same order as they occured in 2.1, I committed them in the
most reasonable order for a dedicated reviewer to understand the
entire scope of changes one piece at a time.  I tossed in the last
few just so that you could see *exactly* what is now different
between trunk/ and 2.0.x/, and decide for yourself if they should 
differ in the manner they do.

Bill
   


Mime
View raw message