On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 10:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Author: niq
>> Date: Mon Jul 5 03:09:03 2010
>> New Revision: 960426
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=960426&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Propose trivial fix (sometimes CTR would be good ...)
>
> AFAIK, all docs backports are CTR, and...
>
>>
>> + *) core authnz: improve misleading error message. PR 38322.
>> + Trunk: N/A
>> + 2.2.x: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25698
>> + +1: niq
>
> this looks like a doc change to me, so I'd suggest it falls under CTR.
> Does anyone disagree that these fall in this category?
"should" be fine
but really, I wonder if it is worth the rule nuance ("you can change a
constant text string but not the code that puts it together, as that
is subject to operational errors and must be reviewed")
this kind of change happens very infrequently; isn't it globally
better to have a simpler def'n of code vs. documentation?
meanwhile, enough people make sweeps through the status file to ensure
that such an improvement doesn't get stranded
