At 01:15 PM 8/7/2005, Joe Orton wrote: >On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:54:45PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > >> Why do you bring this up now when I mentioned that I had vetoed >> the change a good three weeks ago, in STATUS, and advised on >> list that it would be reverted? > >Because you putting random crap in STATUS is meaningless. The R-T-C >process under which the 2.0.x tree is maintained is not.
Ahhh, so your crap in STATUS is called "process", while my crap in STATUS is called "random crap"? If you didn't agree with my ability to veto this unreleased, already committed patch you were welcome to add 2c, your choice of denomination, when I had changed STATUS. And I would have looked around two weeks ago and seen that a late veto was invalid. And I'm agreeing with you, after looking at voting.html, which goes back to 1996. I don't agree with the policy, as this patch hasn't 'left' Apache yet, but I agree the policy is clear. So feel free to cut the crap and start talking to the code, your comments and attitude have been way out of bounds. Bottom line; trunk/ had diverged too far from 2.0.x/ - comparing proxy_http to mod_proxy_http was no longer possible, making it too difficult to see the changes simply. You are asking to play hand-me-a-rock, so I'm pelting you with 25 of them. But if there is anything you don't like at this point, I'm so thoroughly disgusted with the state of proxy, and the fact that the HTTP request and response vulnerability reports, from very early on, interested way too few folks of our [EMAIL PROTECTED] team, that you are welcome to pick up the resulting boulder and lug it around yourself, if you prefer I not svn cp the resulting history back to httpd-2.0 after 3 +1's. Please don't even bother asking me to bring you any more rocks, this has cost me dear in sleep and energy that should have been spent elsewhere. If anyone considers reviewing each of those 25 commits individually to be sufficient to ensure the new code is proper, I challenge them to look at the resulting overall code. It's the small incremental reviews that let the junk which has accumulated keep piling up. When blindly +1'ing patches, it's good to read more than 3 lines back and 3 lines forward. This is why I (should have earlier) vetoed Jeff's patch; what he did was cool, but the propagated mistakes in CL/TE elections and other issues became a bigger mess with the addition of the new three-mode body feature. Anyways, I trust both you and Jeff find the incremental layers I've committed satisfactory for review; I didn't commit them in the same order as they occured in 2.1, I committed them in the most reasonable order for a dedicated reviewer to understand the entire scope of changes one piece at a time. I tossed in the last few just so that you could see *exactly* what is now different between trunk/ and 2.0.x/, and decide for yourself if they should differ in the manner they do. Bill
