On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in
trunk.
Can you give us an example of this dead code?
In modules/ alone (I haven't looked at server/ yet, and don't plan to
today), after ignoring build-related files and stripping the svn-diff
context, there are twenty *thousand* lines of diff between 2.4 and trunk.
Now, here's the problem. I can't prove which parts of these are dead and
which aren't; I can't prove that *any* of it is dead, really. I only
know that there are twenty thousand lines of unreviewed code changes in
modules/. That's significant, IMO.
Here are three cherry-picked modules which, to me, seem to be in limbo.
Whether we consider this code "dead" or "sleeping" or "on temporary
hiatus" or "untouched because it's perfect already" is probably heavily
subjective.
1) mod_policy
1300 lines, added in 2011, last meaningful code change in 2012, no tests
that I can find. (However, it does have public documentation.)
2) mod_serf
1100 lines, added in 2007, last meaningful code change in 2011, no
tests, no public documentation.
3) mod_apreq2
1000 lines, added in 2011, no meaningful code changes since addition, no
tests, no documented public release of libapreq2 since 2010. (It does
have public documentation. And it seems like there's history here I
don't understand. Maybe it lives somewhere else and was being folded
into httpd?)
So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can fix
what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork. I don't
advocate trashing trunk, and I don't think having "dead code" is a
disaster or a stain on anyone here. I just don't think it's appropriate
to spin up an RC from trunk as-is.
--Jacob
