Mailing List Archive: Apache: Dev

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

rainer.jung at kippdata

Jan 21, 2012, 8:29 AM

Post #1 of 13 (254 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h

On 21.01.2012 15:38, jim [at] apache wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> New Revision: 1234336
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1234336&view=rev
> Log:
> Update copyrights for externally visible and changed code
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/ap_release.h
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h

...

IMHO the next two files are auto-generated and the copyright notice is
added by bison. So no need to overwrite it every time we regenerate the
files.

> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c?rev=1234336&r1=1234335&r2=1234336&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
> /* Bison implementation for Yacc-like parsers in C
>
> - Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h?rev=1234336&r1=1234335&r2=1234336&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
> /* Bison interface for Yacc-like parsers in C
>
> - Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 21, 2012, 2:05 PM

Post #2 of 13 (246 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/21/2012 8:38 AM, jim [at] apache wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> New Revision: 1234336
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1234336&view=rev
> Log:
> Update copyrights for externally visible and changed code

Hi Jim!

> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c?rev=1234336&r1=1234335&r2=1234336&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
> /* Bison implementation for Yacc-like parsers in C
>
> - Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h?rev=1234336&r1=1234335&r2=1234336&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
> /* Bison interface for Yacc-like parsers in C
>
> - Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

That's a mighty big assertion. BTW - congrats on joining the FSF!

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 21, 2012, 2:13 PM

Post #3 of 13 (247 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/21/2012 10:29 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> IMHO the next two files are auto-generated and the copyright notice is added by bison. So
> no need to overwrite it every time we regenerate the files.

Or rather, it's invalid to overwrite it; they claim a copyright in 2011.
They have no copyright on the collective work, so their claim does not
magically /change/ when we rerun the parser. If someone touches these
on an older machine, their resulting file may (correctly) include some
copyright 2010, 2008 etc, and should not be edited; FSF's copyright
interest in the output does not change when it is run, only when they
published their work.

>> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c Sat Jan 21 14:38:25 2012
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>
>> /* Bison implementation for Yacc-like parsers in C
>>
>> - Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> + Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 22, 2012, 8:15 PM

Post #4 of 13 (236 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/21/2012 10:29 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h
>
> IMHO the next two files are auto-generated and the copyright notice is added by bison. So
> no need to overwrite it every time we regenerate the files.

Jim... did I miss your revert here, or had you just not gotten
a round tuit?

Two committers have voted this particularly silly change down,
we need it reverted asap.

jim at jaguNET

Jan 23, 2012, 3:59 AM

Post #5 of 13 (234 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

How goes the Windows fixes? Any work at all done on them?

On Jan 22, 2012, at 11:15 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 1/21/2012 10:29 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
>>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h
>>
>> IMHO the next two files are auto-generated and the copyright notice is added by bison. So
>> no need to overwrite it every time we regenerate the files.
>
> Jim... did I miss your revert here, or had you just not gotten
> a round tuit?
>
> Two committers have voted this particularly silly change down,
> we need it reverted asap.
>

wrowe at apache

Jan 23, 2012, 12:02 PM

Post #6 of 13 (233 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

Thanks for your commit [subject above].

On 1/23/2012 5:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> How goes the Windows fixes? Any work at all done on them?

Yup. As Joe and co indicate on the list, several people have looked
into the core network code, only to discover "here there be dragons".
Outch! This is not windows specific.

The only likely windows defect is misapplication of blocking/nonblock
semantics by apr, which may be the result of apr_socket_make(), and
this is being discussed on its bug ticket.

Joe, Stephan and I are determining the best API solution to the specific
problem set of injecting one initial data bucket from accept-filter like
providers who have the first data block in hand at accept() time. Today
that is only implemented on win32, AIUI, but is easily extended to the
unix kernel/socket provider space. Again, this is being discussed on
its bug ticket.

I'm only aware of those who are working on this from that ticket, so
if others have observations, please add them!

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52476

jim at jagunet

Jan 25, 2012, 11:07 AM

Post #7 of 13 (224 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Again, this is being discussed on
> its bug ticket.

Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't
happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen
to apply to you?

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 25, 2012, 12:08 PM

Post #8 of 13 (224 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/25/2012 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> Again, this is being discussed on
>> its bug ticket.
>
> Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't
> happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen
> to apply to you?

All bug ticket email activity is emailed to bugs [at] httpd

Once upon a time, it was all on one list. We separated this from
dev@ into bugs@ about a decade ago out of convenience for people
to help sort dialog vs. tickets. But bugs@ comments are just as
valid as dev@ comments; they are both on-list. Right?

And there's no decision on that ticket AFAIK; only input data.

jim at jaguNET

Jan 25, 2012, 12:28 PM

Post #9 of 13 (219 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@...
private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition.

If anyone else would have done it, you would have, justifiable,
jumped all on them.

The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which
is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security
issue, that's not the way we work.

Yes, I am eager to get 2.4.x out; but just as I'm unwilling
to tolerate potential stone-walling for simple stone-walling
sake, nor should we tolerate development which *addresses*
the issue which is holding things up, NOT being developed
on list.

On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 1/25/2012 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> Again, this is being discussed on
>>> its bug ticket.
>>
>> Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't
>> happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen
>> to apply to you?
>
> All bug ticket email activity is emailed to bugs [at] httpd
>
> Once upon a time, it was all on one list. We separated this from
> dev@ into bugs@ about a decade ago out of convenience for people
> to help sort dialog vs. tickets. But bugs@ comments are just as
> valid as dev@ comments; they are both on-list. Right?
>
> And there's no decision on that ticket AFAIK; only input data.
>

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 25, 2012, 1:07 PM

Post #10 of 13 (220 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/25/2012 2:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@...
> private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition.

Jim,

You asked for bugs. We gave you bugs. We tracked notes on bugs. /sigh

> The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which
> is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security
> issue, that's not the way we work.

It was your thread, dude; asked and answered. /sigh

That bug revealed a more sinister bug, with discussion on dev. /sigh

Attachments:

message-rfc822.eml (3.06 KB)

message-rfc822.eml (3.66 KB)

info at apachelounge

Jan 25, 2012, 1:15 PM

Post #11 of 13 (219 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

Be awake, the issue is discussed on this list many times, when I recall I started it in June. On request of the list a bug is opened and there, dev's are discussing solutions on the ticket.

I noted before here that when a issue reported on the list and a request by eg you is made to report it as a bug the big chance is that it is of the table.

Op 25 jan. 2012 om 20:28 heeft Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jaguNET> het volgende geschreven:

> Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@...
> private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition.
>
> If anyone else would have done it, you would have, justifiable,
> jumped all on them.
>
> The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which
> is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security
> issue, that's not the way we work.
>
> Yes, I am eager to get 2.4.x out; but just as I'm unwilling
> to tolerate potential stone-walling for simple stone-walling
> sake, nor should we tolerate development which *addresses*
> the issue which is holding things up, NOT being developed
> on list.
>
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2012 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>> Again, this is being discussed on
>>>> its bug ticket.
>>>
>>> Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't
>>> happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen
>>> to apply to you?
>>
>> All bug ticket email activity is emailed to bugs [at] httpd
>>
>> Once upon a time, it was all on one list. We separated this from
>> dev@ into bugs@ about a decade ago out of convenience for people
>> to help sort dialog vs. tickets. But bugs@ comments are just as
>> valid as dev@ comments; they are both on-list. Right?
>>
>> And there's no decision on that ticket AFAIK; only input data.
>>
>

jim at jagunet

Jan 25, 2012, 1:53 PM

Post #12 of 13 (219 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

/sigh... Bill, you missed the whole point about bugs@ vs dev@.
Whatever.

I am quite happy to see Joe and Stefan working the issue
on the 'Re: trunk/2.4 core output filter is broken' thread
and, as usual, working and 'determining the best API solution'
with actual code and implementations... and doing so on
the dev@ list where it belongs.

On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 1/25/2012 2:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@...
>> private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition.
>
> Jim,
>
> You asked for bugs. We gave you bugs. We tracked notes on bugs. /sigh
>
>> The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which
>> is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security
>> issue, that's not the way we work.
>
> It was your thread, dude; asked and answered. /sigh
>
> That bug revealed a more sinister bug, with discussion on dev. /sigh
> <Attached Message.eml><Attached Message.eml>

wrowe at rowe-clan

Jan 25, 2012, 2:50 PM

Post #13 of 13 (219 views)
Permalink

Re: svn commit: r1234336 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: include/ap_release.h server/util_expr_parse.c server/util_expr_parse.h [In reply to]

On 1/25/2012 3:53 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> /sigh... Bill, you missed the whole point about bugs@ vs dev@.
> Whatever.

No... you missed the point about bugs@ vs dev@. They are a discussion
without a difference. If it were controversial, the list is a better
place for a vote, but there is no vote nested in that bug.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads