httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Another day, another veto (Was: Optimising ap_location_walk())
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:35:10 GMT
On 25 Oct 2010, at 12:18 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> There are four factors here; 1) location matching, 2) merge caching,  
> 3) premerging,
> and 4) path lookups.  You've conflated these in a way that really  
> concerns me.

No Bill, you've just conflated them. The rest of us are simply  
discussing possibilities at this point, and I would appreciate it if  
we could bring the discussion to a conclusion in a civil fashion.

> Consider this a pre -1 until enough eyes have
> asserted that they have reviewed such a sandbox and declared it an  
> improvement.

Wow, the very first contribution to the discussion is a veto, and  
you've vetoed code that doesn't even exist yet. Crickey, the *ideas*  
behind what code might be attempted haven't been fleshed out yet and  
you're already waving a veto around. Somehow what started as possible  
ways for indexing a really inefficient lookup in an efficient way has  
suddenly ballooned into a "massive reorganisation".

You've been asked before many times and you are now being asked yet  
again, please please please stop playing the veto card. It is  
destructive, demoralising, patronising, and chases potential  
contributors away from this project.

I have no problem with a sandbox *if* the discussion turns towards a  
major reorganisation. I don't have a problem with holding off until  
httpd v3.0 *if* it turns out the discussion leads towards a major  
change in semantics.

But lets have the discussion first please!

> Biting off all four at once will probably be a good way to attract  
> insufficient
> review of the changes.

100% correct, which is why I had no intention of doing it. We are  
short enough of reviewers as it is.


View raw message