Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-21 Thread Roy T. Fielding
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:55:48AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > As I said a LONG time ago. I'm not veto'ing this change. That doesn't > mean I can't gripe about it. I am sick and tired of going back and forth > over issues that were decided years ago. And I am sick and tired of hearing about thi

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-18 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 01:58 am, Greg Stein wrote: As I said a LONG time ago. I'm not veto'ing this change. That doesn't mean I can't gripe about it. I am sick and tired of going back and forth over issues that were decided years ago. Ryan > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:38:25PM -0700, Ju

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-18 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:38:25PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >... > Since there is a veto against the use of SIGWINCH by default, the > current code in CVS is broken. I would like to resolve this > before we tag and roll again. -- justin By definition, it must be resolved before the nex

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > Forcing people to use SIGUSR1on a platform that has co-opted that signal > is broken. Obviously, that wouldn't work. My patch allowed SIGWINCH to be used on Linux 2.0 while switching the default to be SIGUSR1 on sane platforms. Your

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Bill Stoddard
ubject: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0 > This should resolve Roy's veto by switching back to SIGUSR1 for > graceful restarts (except on Linux 2.0 with glibc 2.0). > > As I don't think you can veto a veto (call a vote?), I don't think > his

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Monday 17 September 2001 11:15 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:07:13AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > On Monday 17 September 2001 11:04 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > > I know what the mails were about. I am simply stating that it is still > > completely bogus. > >

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:01:40PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > As I don't think you can veto a veto (call a vote?), I don't think > > his veto can be overriden. > > Nope; he has to be convinced to retract it. :-) Maybe we should wait until he can speak for himself. -aaron

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:07:13AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Monday 17 September 2001 11:04 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > I know what the mails were about. I am simply stating that it is still completely > bogus. I disagree. It should be SIGUSR1 everywhere. As a compromise, I allowed c

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Ryan Bloom wrote: > > This is completely BOGUS! If I have a farm of web servers > running on different platforms, all of the signals should > be the same. Oh, bah. 'Windows.' 'VMS.' 'MacOS' (not OS X). I agree with Sander that the thing that should be the same is the supported commands to ma

RE: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Sander Striker
> -Original Message- > From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2001 19:58 > On Monday 17 September 2001 10:53 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > This is completely BOGUS! If I have a farm of web servers running > on different > platforms, all of the signals should

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Monday 17 September 2001 11:04 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I know what the mails were about. I am simply stating that it is still completely bogus. Ryan > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:57:32AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > This is completely BOGUS! If I have a farm of web servers running on >

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:57:32AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > This is completely BOGUS! If I have a farm of web servers running on different > platforms, all of the signals should be the same. Roy's -1 on SIGWINCH: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3e Roy's comment on making it configurable: http:[EMAIL

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > This should resolve Roy's veto by switching back to SIGUSR1 for > graceful restarts (except on Linux 2.0 with glibc 2.0). > > As I don't think you can veto a veto (call a vote?), I don't think > his veto can be overriden. Nope; he has to be convinced to retract it.

Re: [PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Ryan Bloom
On Monday 17 September 2001 10:53 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: This is completely BOGUS! If I have a farm of web servers running on different platforms, all of the signals should be the same. Ryan > This should resolve Roy's veto by switching back to SIGUSR1 for > graceful restarts (except on L

[PATCH] Switch back to SIGUSR1 and use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0

2001-09-17 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
This should resolve Roy's veto by switching back to SIGUSR1 for graceful restarts (except on Linux 2.0 with glibc 2.0). As I don't think you can veto a veto (call a vote?), I don't think his veto can be overriden. But, I do want to post this before I commit it as it is a widespread change and I