Graham Leggett wrote: > Davi Arnaut wrote: > >> I've just described that. Maybe my English was poor in the e-mail. > > Your English is spot on, unfortunately the aggressive nature of your > email isn't. > > You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any > patch, it's not how this project works.
I'm not bulling anyone. This is not a personal attack, it was a public calling for you to "adjust" the process. > It is quite clear to me that you are upset that your patches were not > accepted as is. Unfortunately your patches break existing compliance > with RFC2616 in the cache, and in the process introduce a significant > performance penalty. This has been pointed out to you before, and not > just by me. That's exactly the problem, I'm not trying to compete with you. I'm not upset if my patches are not accepted, I just want the best possible solution that satisfies the community. I called you to work together with everybody on the list before committing. My patches were intended as a experiment, there weren't even targeted at trunk (cache refactor branch). I don't care if the patches are going to be committed or not. I don't contribute to prove to anyone that I'm better or anything else, I contribute because I really enjoy working on some parts of httpd/apr. I'm not going to dispute with you if mine suggestions or yours are accepted. I just want that everybody is heard on the process and that the final process pleases the majority. > Your recent comments on patches contributed have made it clear that you > neither understand the patches so committed, nor have you actually run > the code in question. I respectfully request you fix both these issues > before continuing any work on this cache. I don't want to solve this problem alone, I don't have all the answers. But I do know that last week jumbo patches didn't advance the issue any further because they were vetoed -- not because they were wrong, but because you didn't work with everybody before committing then. I will let this thread die now, which was created to gather a consensus but failed miserably. I just hope our minor disagreements won't interfere with us working on mod_cache in the future. I will repeat again, I'm not attacking you. I was pursing what I thought was better for mod_cache. -- Davi Arnaut
