Return-Path: owner-new-httpd Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA19089; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:48:35 -0700 Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA19076; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:48:33 -0700 Received: by ooo.lanl.gov (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA045682481; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:48:01 -0600 From: Rob Hartill Message-Id: <199506302248.AA045682481@ooo.lanl.gov> Subject: Re: Shambhala To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 16:48:01 MDT In-Reply-To: ; from "Brian Behlendorf" at Jun 30, 95 2:07 pm X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663, Los Alamos NM 87545 X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh ! X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/ X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org > Apologies for using short names, (robh = Rob Hartill, rst = Rob Thau). > > On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Rob Hartill wrote: > > Is Shambhala a drop in replacement binary for apache ? > > I think that's rst's design, yes. Hmm, I think were going to have to put this down to lack of communication on the list. Had I known a month ago what I know now, I certainly wouldn't have done all that work on 0.7.x. Maybe it was rst's choice of phrases, such as "garage project" and it having a different name, maybe I didn't read his mailings thoroughly enough, maybe they weren't explicit enough, whatever.. I did not follow what rst was up to. I certainly didn't realise it was a reworked but functionally compatible NCSA type server (if I worded that badly, I hope you know what I was trying to say). It's a shame that nobody using Shambhala (who must have realised what was going on) didn't raise these issues weeks ago. I can only presume that rst was too modest to push Shambhala, or at least discussion of it, onto use more vigourously. I remember saying words to the effect of "this is what I plan to do, stop me if you think this isn't a good idea". Why the hell didn't anyone say something ? ... did others get the same impression about rst's work as I did ?. Come on people, if you want to be part of this group, collaborate !. end of rant. That said, and after looking at the code and trying (for a few minutes) it looks great, and I've no objection to switching to it. If we'd switched earlier, we'd be in much better shape now. The code would have had a much broader testing.. e.g. one of the first random URLs I clicked on exposed a minor problem that'll need fixing. > regard this as a vote of no confidence in your work on 0.7, robh - if > anything it's been fun watching you shove an elephant down the eye of a > needle :) I've learned a few things, but would much rather not have done all that work and all those 0.7.2/3 revisions knowing what I know now. rob ... not a happy camper.