On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 14:11 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:50 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Author: markt > >> Date: Thu Oct 2 04:50:08 2008 > >> New Revision: 701093 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=701093&view=rev > >> Log: > >> Withdraw patch for further work > > > > Even if it did not cause any regressions, why was it proposed ? > Because it is a bug and there is no other release branch to propose it for. > What is the point of users reporting bugs and us fixing them if we have no > plans to include the fix in a release branch?
That is a problem you can work on. If you want to have a release branch where you can release not-so-stable or risky patches, then propose a new one. > > It is a > > minor issue (the guy who is impacted by that should consider packaging > > his application properly), > There is nothing to say you can't use symlinks for libraries. I wouldn't > package my app that way but if we are going to have an allowLinking > attribute then we should make sure it actually works. This does not make sense to me, sorry. You are still fixing behaviors which have always existed, helping a handful of people that probably got used to the behavior anyway, and hurting everyone else. > and the patch changes something which is used > > in many places > Indeed. That is a reason to fix it rather than to leave it in my view. > > > (it likely makes listing folders an order of magnitude > > slower). > Directory listings are already horribly slow. There is a patch in BZ to > cache them which claims significant improvements. I am not referring to the HTML listings, and this would still be even slower. How is that ok given the non existent benefit ? > > Tomcat 6.0 is supposed to be a stable branch, so I don't see how > > everything can be backported. > Until there is an alternative release branch, I don't see how every bug fix > can not be backported. I will not hesitate to -1 more patches then, as soon as they look risky to me. > Tomcat 7 will be driven by the 3.0 spec timetable. You are on the EG, what > are the plans for 3.0? I am not aware of such a plan being voted. Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
