httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r960426 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Date Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:27:31 GMT
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 10:09 PM, niq@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: niq
>> Date: Mon Jul  5 03:09:03 2010
>> New Revision: 960426
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=960426&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Propose trivial fix (sometimes CTR would be good ...)
>
> AFAIK, all docs backports are CTR, and...
>
>>
>> +  *) core authnz: improve misleading error message.  PR 38322.
>> +     Trunk: N/A
>> +     2.2.x: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25698
>> +     +1: niq
>
> this looks like a doc change to me, so I'd suggest it falls under CTR.
> Does anyone disagree that these fall in this category?

"should" be fine

but really, I wonder if it is worth the rule nuance ("you can change a
constant text string but not the code that puts it together, as that
is subject to operational errors and must be reviewed")

this kind of change happens very infrequently; isn't it globally
better to have a simpler def'n of code vs. documentation?

meanwhile, enough people make sweeps through the status file to ensure
that such an improvement doesn't get stranded

Mime
View raw message