On 10/31/22 5:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 10/30/22 4:28 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> And to be frank- framing my input as me slagging on Yann is grotesque. You
>> ship GA releases as a team, and so when you ship a dud
>> like 2.17 you should take your lumps as a team.
>
> I admit that the libapreq2 codebase doesn't get that much review attention as
> other parts of httpd and does not draw that much
> developer interest. Hence we were very grateful that Yann took some time to
> do the needful, fixed the security issue and took it
> to a release to get that issue fixed for the users. Thank you Yann for this.
> The fact that at least the existing tests still
> passed after the changes was at least for me a good indicator that the
> changes don't break stuff and are fine.
> I also understand if you feel upset if the codebase you wrote and regard as
> better was changed and if you feel that the code
> deserves more love and care.
> The way to fix this is to participate here in a constructive way to get it in
> the direction you want it to be.
> If you feel that this isn't the correct community for this codebase we can
> also talk about this as Eric indicated.
> I am with Joe Orton and Greg that you are around for long enough to know that
> the way you started this brought attention to your
> desires but was counterproductive in many ways (tone of the emails, number of
> emails, top postings, too broad statements) to get
> things were you want them to be.
Having said this, lets move forward and get into the details which cases are
broken and what parts of the code cause this and
should be different.
Regards
Rüdiger
