httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davi Arnaut <>
Subject Re: mod_cache summary and plan
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:03:51 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Davi Arnaut wrote:
>> I've just described that. Maybe my English was poor in the e-mail.
> Your English is spot on, unfortunately the aggressive nature of your 
> email isn't.
> You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any 
> patch, it's not how this project works.

I'm not bulling anyone. This is not a personal attack, it was a public
calling for you to "adjust" the process.

> It is quite clear to me that you are upset that your patches were not 
> accepted as is. Unfortunately your patches break existing compliance 
> with RFC2616 in the cache, and in the process introduce a significant 
> performance penalty. This has been pointed out to you before, and not 
> just by me.

That's exactly the problem, I'm not trying to compete with you. I'm not
upset if my patches are not accepted, I just want the best possible
solution that satisfies the community. I called you to work together
with everybody on the list before committing.

My patches were intended as a experiment, there weren't even targeted at
trunk (cache refactor branch). I don't care if the patches are going to
be committed or not. I don't contribute to prove to anyone that I'm
better or anything else, I contribute because I really enjoy working on
some parts of httpd/apr.

I'm not going to dispute with you if mine suggestions or yours are
accepted. I just want that everybody is heard on the process and that
the final process pleases the majority.

> Your recent comments on patches contributed have made it clear that you 
> neither understand the patches so committed, nor have you actually run 
> the code in question. I respectfully request you fix both these issues 
> before continuing any work on this cache.

I don't want to solve this problem alone, I don't have all the answers.
But I do know that last week jumbo patches didn't advance the issue any
further because they were vetoed -- not because they were wrong, but
because you didn't work with everybody before committing then.

I will let this thread die now, which was created to gather a consensus
but failed miserably. I just hope our minor disagreements won't
interfere with us working on mod_cache in the future. I will repeat
again, I'm not attacking you. I was pursing what I thought was better
for mod_cache.

Davi Arnaut

View raw message