httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: HTTP/1.1 strict ruleset
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2016 01:14:06 GMT
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:02 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If consensus here agrees that no out-of-spec behavior should be tolerated
>> anymore, I'll jump on board. I'm already in the consensus block that says
>> we should not ship a new major.minor without disallowing all of this
>> garbage.
>>
>> It would be helpful if other PMC members would weigh in yea or nay on
>> dropping out-of-spec behaviors from 2.4 and 2.2 maintenance branches.
>>
>>
>> That would be weird.  One of us is going to create a patch.  That
>> specific patch is
>> going to be voted upon for backport.  If anyone wants to veto it, they
>> are free
>> to do so with justification.
>>
>
> You don't seem to comprehend the idea behind consensus, which is what I'm
> appealing for. You first among them all were perfectly happy to champion
> stupid
> design considerations as 'beyond Bill's authority' as a committer and
> reviewer,
> and sadly while I sat in the chair of httpd and got to eat dirt.
>
> I'm not trying that again, httpd 2.0 does not entirely compile against apr
> 2.0-dev,
> and likely never will due to this stalemate.
>
> I'm entirely willing to invite vetos with my code, if I wasn't I wouldn't
> commit.
> But if you go back through the archives, you will realize several of you
> were
> entirely on the wrong side of problem-solving. If you would personally like
> to invite vetoes, please be our guest.
>

And FWIW you were on record that a veto does not demand a justification,
so let that settle in.

Mime
View raw message