William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> On 7/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >>> > >>> > The problem is that the APR code relies on the MSVC run-time being >>> > consistent: as we have demonstrated, it's not. It can and does report >>> > c:\ in several circumstances. >>> >>> Yes, and so what? This should be harmless... please indicate the bug >>> that the VETOED code supposedly corrects? >>> >>> (And Mr. Committer, revert your vetoed code already.) >> >> Why the rush to revert? We're trying to understand the codebase here >> to ensure we're making the right change rather than rushing to revert: >> the testcases indicate a clearly false assumption in the APR runtime - >> that drive letters are always upper-cased by the runtime. > > Piddle with your experiments in a sandbox. Vetoed code needs to go when > it's vetoed. This veto is over the fact that you've CHANGED security > related behavior, and that won't become acceptable. > > The fact that it hasn't been reverted shows really bad etiquite by the > committer. Commit then review means just that; this is committed, the > fact that it breaks canonical comparisons was observed, now that it's > reviewed it needs to be reverted.
Er. I'm sorry I didn't revert it in under 24 hours, but like, I wasn't just reading email and hanging out with my machine ready to revert a commit right after I made it. Like i said earlier, I will try to get to it tonight, we all have busy schedules, so don't lay down this bullshit that its bad etiquette to not revert a commit as quickly as you would like. -Paul
