From: rst@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:38:54 EST
Message-Id: <9503142238.AA03417@volterra>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
In-Reply-To: <9503142222.AA20677@www.elsevier.co.uk> (message from Andrew
 Wilson on Tue, 14 Mar 95 22:22:47 GMT)
Subject: Re: httpd patch B5 updated.
Sender: owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

   Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 22:22:47 GMT
   From: Andrew Wilson <andrew@www.elsevier.co.uk>

   I agree entirely and I'd urge everyone to just slow down please.

   So we need:

   o	An up-to-date patch list
   o	A deep breath
   o	Start at B1 and work down


Agreed up to here.

   It might be a good idea to limit ourselves to:

   o	Discussing NO MORE THAN 1 (say) patches at a time.
   o	Not moving on to a 2nd patch till the previous one
	   has been completely dealt with and signed off.

This is where I have a problem.  What with everybody's sleep/wake
cycles being as off-kilter as they are, I have a hard time imagining a
patch getting cleared in less than twenty-four hours.  This means we'd
spend the better part of a *month* just groveling over the existing
patch list (especially considering how likely we'd be to lose time
over weekends).  That kind of delay isn't quite what came to my mind
when Rob said "lights, camera, *action*".  [Emphasis added ;-)].

I originally intended my first-cut patch list as a kind of group
ballot.  Maybe it's too large to serve the purpose, but can we at
least decide which patches are *completely* non-controversial and
dispose of them now, so that discussion time is spent on topics where
there's something to discuss?

I'd really like to stay on target for an alpha of some form this
weekend if at *all* possible.

   A patch's status should be one of submitted/being-discussed/dropped/accepted.

   Focus some,
   Ay.


rst