I wasn't intending to bug you. I think flood belongs in a separate category because it is not httpd specific.
Guy On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:31 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Guy Ferraiolo wrote: > > Unknown. I submitted a patch a while ago and Willam Rowe showed some > > interest but I haven't heard about it, yet. I'd be willing to volunteer > > for this. I use flood a lot and I have some ideas of my own. Also, I'd > > like to head off potential problems in advance. > > > > The patch I submitted was one that allowed randomization of URLs or > > parts of URLs. > > Yes - and I'll be back (to that whole thread) - sorry I've been traveling > extensively, and am trying to settle down for a month on subjects such as > flood; one of my colleagues is also hacking on it, so I should really be > able to devote some attention. > > On this subject - do we need a Bugzilla space for this? > > Right now we have "Apache httpd-1.3" and "Apache httpd-2.0" products in > bugzilla, and none of the subcategories fit really well. > > I'd love to see the second renamed "Apache httpd-2" to avoid confusion. > > Do we want a new Bugzilla category such as "Apache httpd test" with the > only subcomponents of "flood", "perl-framework" (or test-framework) and > "specweb plugin"? Or would it be more useful to have "Apache httpd flood" > (or simply httpd flood) as a specific category? > > Bill -- Guy Ferraiolo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Performance Measurement & Analysis http://CNET.com CNET tel: 1.908.541.3739 1200 Route 22 East fax: 1.908.575.7474 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 cel: 1.732.618.0250
