Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACsi251bNgaVskf0RzkyfGbb7idDg+yTZCH-=2y7L6M5GxS_2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACsi2515co=FUC4GVmqFKgx8pBVrfGUNsYaJrnMQiMcogow1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DA8177D-CA1E-4488-90AD-D84D3AE3D113@gbiv.com> <CACsi250oRvhFzsQ1kX8XtcO70nKcBh6p2CAd0kTuxOOcSqrqUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F663A3B9-5EFF-404B-AB05-05B5ED537CA9@gbiv.com> <CACsi251bNgaVskf0RzkyfGbb7idDg+yTZCH-=2y7L6M5GxS_2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:14:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CACsi25062kmupRxpHx+jzu_dE3wGX6V3v9-VLY+1fOB5FQfZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HTTP/1.1 strict ruleset
To: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f3a887b9edd053948c869
archived-at: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 01:14:18 -0000

--001a113f3a887b9edd053948c869
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

--001a113f3a887b9edd053948c869
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net" target=3D"_blank">wrowe@rowe-clan.net</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Thu, Aug=
 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:fielding@gbiv.com" target=3D"_blank">fielding@gbiv.com</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-=
word"><span class=3D""><div><span><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 4, =
2016, at 3:02 PM, William A Rowe Jr &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.n=
et" target=3D"_blank">wrowe@rowe-clan.net</a>&gt; wrote:</div></blockquote>=
</span></div></span><span class=3D""><span><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-family:Palatino-Roman;font-size:13px;font-sty=
le:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line=
-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-s=
pace:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote"><div>If consensus here agrees that no out-of-spec behavior should =
be tolerated</div><div>anymore, I&#39;ll jump on board. I&#39;m already in =
the consensus block that says</div><div>we should not ship a new major.mino=
r without disallowing all of this garbage.</div><div><br></div><div>It woul=
d be helpful if other PMC members would weigh in yea or nay on</div><div>dr=
opping out-of-spec behaviors from 2.4 and 2.2 maintenance branches.=C2=A0</=
div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div></span><div>That would be weir=
d.=C2=A0 One of us is going to create a patch.=C2=A0 That specific patch is=
</div><div>going to be voted upon for backport.=C2=A0 If anyone wants to ve=
to it, they are free</div><div>to do so with justification.</div><span><fon=
t color=3D"#888888"><div></div></font></span></span></div></blockquote></di=
v></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">You=
 don&#39;t seem to comprehend the idea behind consensus, which is what I=
9;m</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">appealing for. You first among them all=
 were perfectly happy to champion stupid</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">de=
sign considerations as &#39;beyond Bill&#39;s authority&#39; as a committer=
 and reviewer,</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">and sadly while I sat in the=
 chair of httpd and got to eat dirt.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I&#39;m not trying that again, httpd 2.0 doe=
s not entirely compile against apr 2.0-dev,=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra">and likely never will due to this stalemate.</div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I&#39;m entirely willing to i=
nvite vetos with my code, if I wasn&#39;t I wouldn&#39;t commit.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra">But if you go back through the archives, you will rea=
lize several of you were</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">entirely on the wr=
ong side of problem-solving. If you would personally like</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">to invite vetoes, please be our guest.</div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>And FWIW you were on record that a veto does not d=
emand a justification,</div><div>so let that settle in.=C2=A0</div></div></=
div></div>

--001a113f3a887b9edd053948c869--