You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Andrew <an...@aaaaaaaa.demon.co.uk> on 1995/09/17 18:58:41 UTC
voting...
Voting +0 Sorry, I wasn't paying full attention. Re-reading:
http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/voting.html#patchvote
I see that +0 is only a valid offer for 'actions', patches
specifically being covered by a different ruling on what
votes really mean. So I get to choose +1 if I've:
1.read the patch header to see what problem it addresses
2.successfully patched it into CURRENT
3.observed no bad side-effects resulting from the patch.
or I can choose -1:
-1 is a veto on the patch. All vetos must come with an
explanation of why the veto is appropriate. A veto with no
explanation is void.
Well, let me see.
1) I read the header and it's adding a functional
enhancement, not correcting a bug. Hadn't noticed that
either, first time round. It calls sprintf and writes out
a 'long' using a %d, instead of a %ld. Does this matter?
2) Yeah, it patches clean.
3) Nothing explodes when I use the patch. (How do
I test if printing a long using %d is giving
erronious output?!)
Sooo, I guess it's gunna have to be -1. Merely on account of it
being a functional enhancement and not a straight bug fix. Sorry.
Inidentally, theres nothing to stop you running your own set of
patches (functional enhancements, whatever) on top of 0.8.14. I
know many of us are doing this already.
Ho hum.
Ay.