On 3/21/2010 2:55 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2010, at 9:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> It was reviewed and vetoed by wrowe [not the purpose, but the effect]
>> and that
>> veto of trunk was not addressed before proposing this patch; the backport
>> proposal was invalid so the results of the backport vote are equally
>> invalid.
>>
>> Please revert, today, or I'm happy to back it out the entire mess on
>> both trunk
>> and 2.2 myself tomorrow, until a sensible hack is proposed.
>>
>> This is the procedural thread.  We'll take up the veto on the original
>> thread
>> you appear to have ignored.
> 
> Can you point out the message in which you veto'ed this?

Scratch my comment for now, and my frustration.  It appears my frustration 
should
be directed at Thunderbird because I know I drafted this message (and just 
discovered
thousands of duplicate drafts, but none of this particular message.)

The gist of my objection is this illegitimate behavior;

Include conf/extra/*.duh

Include conf/extra/*/doh.conf

Include conf/empty/*

Include conf/*/whoops.conf

The last one (based on an existing conf/empty directive) fails, alerting the 
admin
to the fact that they made a typo, which is good.

The others all fail-to-fail with this logic [based on the absence of any 
matching
directories in the extra/ folder].  That's unacceptable.

So take this as my first attempt at a -1, sorry I was snippy.  Based on my 
missing
or unsent message please don't feel obligated to back it out, if you would 
rather
offer the fix to this inappropriate behavior and propose it for backport.

In summary, my veto's logic is;

No-match of a wildcard must result in an error.  If you are arguing that httpd
should allow the admin to create conf/vhosts/*, only populated if they are 
created,
then I'll counter that would be fine, just populate conf/vhosts/empty.conf with 
no
lines, the error would go away, and supporting no-matches is never necessary.  
This
must be true of both file and directory patterns to prevent users from 
experiencing
unnecessary frustration over their own fat fingers.



Reply via email to