Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

Apologies for the bombast, Joe. Constructively, I’m just offering development advice as an SME, which you are free to act on or not as the team sees fit. But you’re right that this is a Releng issue, not a development one, that I’m trying to surface in terms of how patch management is

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

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

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:09:02AM -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Forgive me for summarizing, but I didn’t come here expecting help, much > less collaboration on a solution. I came here expecting to be scolded for > having the temerity to critique the quality of the patch sets you’ve been >

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

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

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

This stuff was written for an RFC era of the mid 2000s, and a lot of the uncertainties around industry direction have been clarified in the years since then, particularly as they relate to cookie standards. The nastiest code in here is the cookie parser logic that was required back then. If

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

Get Outlook for iOS From: Ruediger Pluem Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 12:21 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years On 10/30/22 4:28 PM, Joe Schaefer

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

The reason this took so long for the community to diagnose isn't because of ill-intent, but because it constituted a change of behavior in the parser logic that wasn't surfaced in the Changes file. There is never going to come a time when there is any need for urgent action on apreq- if it was

Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years

With regard to the faulty patch this revolves around: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1895107 I do not expect you to know the specs, know the code, nor know what this patch actually does, in order to reject it from a GA release. I expect you to say to yourselves: High Risk, Low