On 10/16/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Ivan Zhakov <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 10/14/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > I just committed a first draft of the 1.3.0 CHANGES entry, so at least
> > > our rc1 tarball is no longer blocking on that.
> > It seems that you forget about r16029 (mod_authz_svn should only
> > return HTTP_FORBIDDEN). I consider it is important fix.
> The CHANGES file is never 100% complete, it represents an "edited"
> version of changes, sort of a summary/highlights thing. I
> personally didn't think it was quite important enough to list as a
> separate item, because (1) there was no bug filed on it, (2) nobody's
> ever noticed or complained about it before, since the birth of
> mod_authz_svn, and (3) it doesn't harm users or make the software
> unusable. It seems more like a theoretical correction. Generally, I
> think the CHANGES file should list bugs that either have nasty
> negative effects on users, or are bugs that might make someone want to
Agreed that CHANGES should be summary, but this fix important and I
have complained. The subversion says reqiuere enter new password,
although problems that you haven't commit access to area, it is
annoying. And users might be glad to know that this is fixed.
> But, if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and add it the list. :-)
First of all I'll try convince you :-)
Received on Sun Oct 16 17:45:06 2005