httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: What's next for 2.2 and 2.3/trunk?
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:38:21 GMT
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> "CTR is fine for all normal fixes.  RTC is always preferred for major code
> refactorings."
> I ask you this: What constitutes "a modest new feature"? It's not a fix. It's not a major
code refactoring. But modest new features have been strongly objected to by a small group
of people on this list who insisted it was a clear cut case of "should have reviewed first",
on a branch that is CTR.
> I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the need for review of a major code refactoring.
I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to those who express the opinion that a piece of
committed code is inappropriate or unnecessary. But we've reached the point where people want
anything that isn't any more than a fix to be reviewed first *before* commit as a matter of
procedure, and this wooly grey area cannot continue.

Please see

under the heading "When to Commit a Change".

  Ideas must be review-then-commit; patches can be commit-then-review.
  With a commit-then-review process, we trust that the developer doing
  the commit has a high degree of confidence in the change.
  Doubtful changes, new features, and large-scale overhauls need to be
  discussed before being committed to a repository. Any change that affects
  the semantics of arguments to configurable directives, significantly adds
  to the runtime size of the program, or changes the semantics of an
  existing API function must receive consensus approval on the mailing
  list before being committed. 

View raw message