httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:28:41 GMT
Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@...
private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition.

If anyone else would have done it, you would have, justifiable,
jumped all on them.

The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which
is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security
issue, that's not the way we work.

Yes, I am eager to get 2.4.x out; but just as I'm unwilling
to tolerate potential stone-walling for simple stone-walling
sake, nor should we tolerate development which *addresses*
the issue which is holding things up, NOT being developed
on list.

On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 1/25/2012 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> Again, this is being discussed on
>>> its bug ticket.
>> Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't
>> happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen
>> to apply to you?
> All bug ticket email activity is emailed to
> Once upon a time, it was all on one list.  We separated this from
> dev@ into bugs@ about a decade ago out of convenience for people
> to help sort dialog vs. tickets.  But bugs@ comments are just as
> valid as dev@ comments; they are both on-list.  Right?
> And there's no decision on that ticket AFAIK; only input data.

View raw message