On 10/29/2015 11:05 PM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
To give you some ideas of what can be looked at easily by new comers:
Hi Christophe,
Thanks for the list! Is there any way to get these into the STATUS, or
into a document that the STATUS points to? (The current "Contributors
looking for a
Le 27/10/2015 17:27, Jacob Champion a écrit :
>
>> The most exciting work on httpd for me has been Christophe Jaillet’s
>> memory optimisation patches. With each patch the code gets cleaner
>> and the server gets faster. We need more of this kind of stuff.
>
> How would you improve the process
On 27 Oct 2015, at 12:40 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
>> That may not be easy. You need to find someone who'll be interested in an
>> idea or patch, and has the time to review it.
>> Plus, the community as a whole to agree it's a good idea, or at least not
>> actively
On 10/27/2015 03:26 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 27 Oct 2015, at 12:40 AM, Tim Bannister
wrote:
That may not be easy. You need to find someone who'll be
interested in an idea or patch, and has the time to review it.
Plus, the community as a whole to agree it's a good
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just some food for thought; let me know if I'm off the rails.
>
Well, that depends on what you are commenting on...
Over the last several months, it's appeared to me that we have
> been adding patches that feel, well,
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:51:43 -0700
Jacob Champion wrote:
> I'm somewhat on the outside looking in, as an httpd newbie. But my
> standard experience (it's happened two or three times now) is this:
>
> 1) Non-trivial patch is proposed to the list with calls for
>
On 26 Oct 2015, at 22:23, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:51:43 -0700
> Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> I'd rather not feel like I'm just annoying dev@ until you submit my
>> stuff -- I want to *talk* about it, and improve the server.
>
> That may
Hello Jim,
As Bill pointed out, it would be helpful if you could identify some
specific details within the general trend you are observing.
But the kind of thing that you are mentioning is something that I would
expect to happen far more often than can be observed in the Apache HTTP
Server
On 10/26/2015 03:40 PM, Tim Bannister wrote:
On 26 Oct 2015, at 22:23, Nick Kew wrote:
I wonder if workflow would be improved if we had named maintainers
for particular parts of the codebase - for example individual
modules? Not necessarily to do all the work, but to take
On 10/26/2015 03:23 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:51:43 -0700
Jacob Champion wrote:
I'd rather not feel like I'm just annoying dev@ until you submit my
stuff -- I want to *talk* about it, and improve the server.
That may not be easy. You need to find
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jacob Champion
wrote:
> On 10/24/2015 09:32 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>
>> People reviewing changes to the existing code base have to be hard-nosed
>> assholes.
>>
>
> Kurtis,
>
> I agree with everything you said except this. IMHO, you've
On 10/24/2015 09:32 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote:
People reviewing changes to the existing code base have to be hard-nosed
assholes.
Kurtis,
I agree with everything you said except this. IMHO, you've traded one
bad extreme (where few people care about the quality of the codebase)
for another
On 10/24/2015 08:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Thoughts? Comments?
Jim,
I'm somewhat on the outside looking in, as an httpd newbie. But my
standard experience (it's happened two or three times now) is this:
1) Non-trivial patch is proposed to the list with calls for
discussion/debate.
2)
On 10/26/2015 10:52 AM, Kurtis Rader wrote:
Asshole was probably not the best term. I meant it in the sense that you
shouldn't be afraid to tell someone in plain language what the problems
are with their proposed change. Yes, the reviewer should be polite. No,
they should not sugar-coat their
Just some food for thought; let me know if I'm off the rails.
Over the last several months, it's appeared to me that we have
been adding patches that feel, well, very-patchy to me. They
feel like cumbersome add-ons that create some level of fragility
to our code, with special one-off
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just some food for thought; let me know if I'm off the rails.
>
> Over the last several months, it's appeared to me that we have
> been adding patches that feel, well, very-patchy to me. They
> feel like cumbersome add-ons
16 matches
Mail list logo