RE: Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08]
-Original Message- From: Guy Hulbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:33 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08] ... IMHO that's supremely unimportant. I just delete these messages Hmmm ... me too. Do you mean that you just delete the bug report? I can understand that if you're a developer looking for a new bug to fix - you simply go the bugzilla DB and browse. However, I was thinking more from a user perspective; the report could be useful as a digest of recent bugs and their resolution if it were formatted in a more readable way (recent at top) and if the Status column were updated.. A more scary thought is that conceivably some journo, using this report as his sole input text, might write an article whose first para goes something like, As revealed in secret internal documents, the popular Apache webserver has over seven hundred bugs - some, such as one affecting the security-critical suexec mechanism, date from April 2002! Rgds, Owen Boyle Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored. snip It's just a database result. Bear in mind that some old bugs really *should* be fixed (e.g. bug 17629). But many others are left open for altogether different reasons: snip | Total 739 bugs That's the bottom line of what makes a flat list like this useless, IMO. It seems that what would be useful is a summary of counts by type and a list of those bugs whose status has changed ? -- --gh This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and any copies of it from your system. Please also immediately destroy any hardcopies of the message. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of the sender's company.
Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08]
+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned| | | OPN=ReopenedVER=Verified(Skipped Closed/Resolved) | | | +-+ | | | Severity: BLK=Blocker CRI=CriticalMAJ=Major | | | | MIN=Minor NOR=Normal ENH=Enhancement | | | | +-+ | | | | Date Posted | | | | | +--+ | | | | | Description | | | | | | | | 7483|Ass|Enh|2002-03-26|Add FileAction directive to assign a cgi interpret| | 7741|Ass|Nor|2002-04-04|some directives may be placed outside of proper co| | 7862|New|Enh|2002-04-09|suexec never log a group name.| | 8713|New|Min|2002-05-01|No Errorlog on PROPFIND/Depth:Infinity| | 9727|New|Min|2002-06-09|Double quotes should be flagged as T_HTTP_TOKEN_ST| | 9903|Opn|Maj|2002-06-16|mod_disk_cache does not remove temporary files| | 9945|New|Enh|2002-06-18|[PATCH] new funtionality for apache bench | |10114|Ass|Enh|2002-06-21|Negotiation gives no weight to order, only q value| |10154|Ass|Nor|2002-06-23|ApacheMonitor interferes with service uninstall/re| |10722|Opn|Nor|2002-07-12|ProxyPassReverse doesn't change cookie paths | |10775|Ass|Cri|2002-07-13|SCRIPT_NAME wrong value | |10932|Opn|Enh|2002-07-18|Allow Negative regex in LocationMatch | |11035|New|Min|2002-07-22|Apache adds double entries to headers generated by| |11294|New|Enh|2002-07-30|desired vhost_alias option| |11427|Opn|Maj|2002-08-02|Possible Memory Leak in CGI script invocation | |11540|Opn|Nor|2002-08-07|ProxyTimeout ignored | |11580|Opn|Enh|2002-08-09|generate Content-Location headers | |11971|Opn|Nor|2002-08-23|HTTP proxy header Via with wrong hostname if Ser| |11997|Opn|Maj|2002-08-23|Strange critical errors possibly related to mpm_wi| |12033|Opn|Nor|2002-08-26|Graceful restart immidiately result in [warn] long| |12340|Opn|Nor|2002-09-05|WindowsXP proxy, child process exited with status | |12680|New|Enh|2002-09-16|Digest authentication with integrity protection | |12885|New|Enh|2002-09-20|windows 2000 build information: mod_ssl, bison, et| |13029|New|Nor|2002-09-26|Win32 mod_cgi failure with non-ASCII characters in| |13599|Ass|Nor|2002-10-14|autoindex formating broken for multibyte sequences| |13603|New|Nor|2002-10-14|incorrect DOCUMENT_URI in mod_autoindex with Heade| |13661|Ass|Enh|2002-10-15|Apache cannot not handle dynamic IP reallocation | |13986|Ass|Enh|2002-10-26|remove default MIME-type | |14090|New|Maj|2002-10-30|mod_cgid always writes to main server error log | |14104|Opn|Enh|2002-10-30|not documented: must restart server to load new CR| |14206|New|Maj|2002-11-04|DirectoryIndex circumvents -FollowSymLinks option | |14227|Ass|Nor|2002-11-04|Error handling script is not started (error 500) o| |14496|New|Enh|2002-11-13|Cannot upgrade 2.0.39 - 2.0.43. Must uninstall fi| |14556|Inf|Nor|2002-11-14|mod_cache with mod_mem_cache enabled doesnt cash m| |14858|New|Enh|2002-11-26|mod_cache never caches responses for requests requ| |14922|Ass|Enh|2002-11-28|target is currently hardcoded to 'apache2' | |15045|Ass|Nor|2002-12-04|addoutputfilterbytype doesn't work for defaulted t| |15233|Opn|Nor|2002-12-10|move AddType application/x-x509-ca-cert from ssl.c| |15235|New|Nor|2002-12-10|add application/x-x509-email-cert, application/x-x| |15625|New|Nor|2002-12-23|mention mod_ssl in http://nagoya.apache.org/dist/h| |15626|New|Nor|2002-12-23|mention which modules are part of the (binary) dis| |15631|New|Nor|2002-12-23|mention in httpd.conf that mod_ssl is not included| |15719|Inf|Nor|2002-12-30|WebDAV MOVE to destination URI which is content-ne| |15757|Opn|Nor|2003-01-02|Assumption of sizeof (void*)/int begin equal (64-b| |15857|Opn|Nor|2003-01-07|MUST handle chunked response with a 16385Byte-lo| |15859|Opn|Nor|2003-01-07|wrong Content-Length header is forwarded when de-c| |15861|New|Nor|2003-01-07|proxy MUST NOT forward hop-by-hop headers | |15864|New|Nor|2003-01-07|Connection field value parser and quoted tokens | |15865|New|Nor|2003-01-07|proxy forwards response headers matching Connectio| |15866|New|Nor|2003-01-07|cache MUST treat incomplete cached response as par| |15868|New|Nor|2003-01-07|some HTTP methods MUST cause a cache to invalidate|
RE: Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08]
Hi all,
Speaking as an apache user (not developer) who merely lurks on this
list, is it appropriate for me to question the formatting (and hence
usefulness) of this periodic report? If so;
- Might the time-ordering be reversed to show the most recent, first? It
seems a bit odd always to find, right at the top, this ancient bug about
a CGI interpreter... Anything important is 739 bugs later. {I *know*
that this probably means a major rehash of the code that generates the
list and will not be simple as it sounds - then again, if it's built
from a DB query, it might be as simple as replacing DESC with ASC..)
- Is the Status column *ever* updated? For example, is suexec bug
#7862 from April 2002 really New? Did anyone ever fix it?
+---
+
| Bugzilla Bug ID
|
|
+-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
|
| | OPN=ReopenedVER=Verified(Skipped
Closed/Resolved) |
| |
+-+
| | | Severity: BLK=Blocker CRI=CriticalMAJ=Major
|
| | | MIN=Minor NOR=Normal ENH=Enhancement
|
| | |
+-+
| | | | Date Posted
|
| | | |
+--+
| | | | | Description
|
| | | | |
|
| 7483|Ass|Enh|2002-03-26|Add FileAction directive to assign a cgi
interpret|
| 7741|Ass|Nor|2002-04-04|some directives may be placed outside of
proper co|
| 7862|New|Enh|2002-04-09|suexec never log a group name.
|
...
snip/
...
|40698|Unc|Maj|2006-10-06|Spurious Data After Response
|
|40702|Inf|Nor|2006-10-07|child pid exit signal Segmentation fault
(11)|
+-+---+---+--+--
+
| Total 739 bugs
|
+---
+
Rgds,
Owen Boyle
Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored.
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential,
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and
any copies of it from your system. Please also immediately destroy any
hardcopies of the message. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose,
distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail
communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and
the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of the sender's company.
Re: Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08]
On Monday 09 October 2006 07:53, Boyle Owen wrote:
Hi all,
Speaking as an apache user (not developer) who merely lurks on this
list, is it appropriate for me to question the formatting (and hence
usefulness) of this periodic report?
By all means. You've earned karma on the users@ list, but even if
you hadn't you'd be welcome to raise the issue. Bear in mind that
even if you don't program, you can make a really useful contribution
to our bugzilla by going through it and weeding out some of the
dross, to leave it with a better proportion of genuine bugs over noise.
Thanks for opening the debate!
- Might the time-ordering be reversed to show the most recent, first? It
seems a bit odd always to find, right at the top, this ancient bug about
a CGI interpreter... Anything important is 739 bugs later. {I *know*
that this probably means a major rehash of the code that generates the
list and will not be simple as it sounds - then again, if it's built
from a DB query, it might be as simple as replacing DESC with ASC..)
IMHO that's supremely unimportant. I just delete these messages
immediately, and use the online search facility when I find myself with
time to look at bugs.
- Is the Status column *ever* updated? For example, is suexec bug
#7862 from April 2002 really New? Did anyone ever fix it?
It's just a database result. Bear in mind that some old bugs really *should*
be fixed (e.g. bug 17629). But many others are left open for altogether
different reasons:
* They may be underspecified, so noone knows wtf they're about,
yet noone feels confident to close them.
* They may become irrelevant, but noone noticed.
* They may have a patch that's useful for some users but not appropriate
in general. Those are left open to make it easier to find the patches.
* They may be utterly bogus, yet the reporter just reopens them if we
close them.
| Total 739 bugs
That's the bottom line of what makes a flat list like this useless, IMO.
--
Nick Kew
Re: Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2006/10/08]
On Mon, 2006-09-10 at 09:24 +0100, Nick Kew wrote: On Monday 09 October 2006 07:53, Boyle Owen wrote: Hi all, Speaking as an apache user (not developer) who merely lurks on this list, is it appropriate for me to question the formatting (and hence usefulness) of this periodic report? snip Thanks for opening the debate! snip from a DB query, it might be as simple as replacing DESC with ASC..) IMHO that's supremely unimportant. I just delete these messages Hmmm ... me too. snip It's just a database result. Bear in mind that some old bugs really *should* be fixed (e.g. bug 17629). But many others are left open for altogether different reasons: snip | Total 739 bugs That's the bottom line of what makes a flat list like this useless, IMO. It seems that what would be useful is a summary of counts by type and a list of those bugs whose status has changed ? -- --gh
