Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4C080DEE.2070409@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:17:50 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
CC: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>
Subject: Re: What's next for 2.2 and 2.3/trunk?
References: <E678BC45-95F3-460B-A2CA-47880601EAB8@apache.org>
 <201006031858.25927.sf@sfritsch.de> <4C07E809.3000907@rowe-clan.net>
 <201006031959.44615.sf@sfritsch.de>
In-Reply-To: <201006031959.44615.sf@sfritsch.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/3/2010 12:59 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Thursday 03 June 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 6/3/2010 11:58 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> I definitely want to have the per-module/per-dir loglevel config
>>> in 2.4. I think it's working well enough to be commited to
>>> trunk. We can work out the remaining issues there. Unless
>>> somebody disagrees, I am going to commit.
>>
>> I'm still uncomfortable with the new manditory per-every-source
>> file macros.
> 
> Please look at my mail from 1 hour ago. With the latest change, the 
> macros are no longer mandatory. Not using them will just lead to
> the default (i.e. not per-module) loglevel being used for that file.

Thanks!  I'll review, this certainly sounds like it influences my own
opinion.

>> Not enough to vote against (more like -.05), if you
>> are willing to find two more to +1 the proposed patch as it
>> stands.
>>
>> Because it is VERY intrusive, commit-before review is
>> inappropriate.
> 
> On the one hand, I understand that. On the other hand, there seem to 
> be very few people who have enough time to review the patch. It would 
> be a pity if it was not included in 2.4 just for this reason.

It would be, but it's necessary.  The ASF is a collaborative environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are committers.
A major patch like this hitting svn, without previous review, makes our
fellow committers' eyes glaze over.

If there is not positive feedback from two reviewers, this code does not
belong in trunk/.  As a committer, you are *free* to create your own
sandboxes in svn to demonstrate code changes, if that helps attract the
necessary review.

> How were such large changes handled in the past, like the AAA 
> refactoring from 2.2 to 2.3?

Not well [with respect to AAA, or LDAP specifically] - this is one of
the concerns about 2.3 and the need for an extended review period, in
spite of how many terrific changes sit on trunk.