On 10/25/2010 4:35 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 25 Oct 2010, at 12:18 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> Consider this a pre -1 until enough eyes have >> asserted that they have reviewed such a sandbox and declared it an >> improvement. > > Wow, the very first contribution to the discussion is a veto, and you've > vetoed code that > doesn't even exist yet. Crickey, the *ideas* behind what code might be > attempted haven't > been fleshed out yet and you're already waving a veto around.
No, I voted against a concept (of throwing everything against the wall at once), that wasn't even a veto. If you can find 3 +1's, I already asserted that I'd reverse that position, as my primary issue is a lack of review. Right now, I'm staring at development in mod_cache that makes no sense, other than bandaids and bubblegum over operational flaws, while we have underlying logic between the datastore provider that thinks httpd, and the mod_cache protocol module which is dealing with storage questions. And you are asking to refactor *what* next? Eeek! What I was trying to say, however untactfully, is that I wouldn't be very supportive of the same approach to core code. And reading the rest of your reply, I think we are of the same mind. FWIW I didn't conflate anything, I understood each of the aspects of the proposal you put forward as "one change". If you can break down your proposal into digestible pieces, I'll support any demonstrable worthwhile piece you put forward. I'm simply asking for no repeats of the current state of cache/proxy/ldap/etc etc. And I don't really think you disagree. Pick a piece to discuss, and I'm happy to respond.
