httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew <>
Subject Re: The madness has started...
Date Sat, 02 Dec 1995 21:25:44 GMT
>   6)    We have no binaries available yet.
>   7)	It would be best (in several opinions) to release a fully
>  	functional set of binaries.
>   8)	If we release binaries using the 1.0.0 source base with
> 	these modules enabled, people will be getting cookie_logs
> 	referer_logs, and agent_logs created that may not want them.
> 	Worse yet, if they attempt to use these binaries *without*
> 	the config file directives to the log files, the server falls
> 	over dead.
> No big deal. I have a 1.0.1 source release packaged and ready to
> be put on hyperreal. We can then begin building and providing
> binaries as well. The sooner we make a decision, the fewer people
> out there will have 1.0.0.
> All I need is some group support.

An alternative is to not include the additional logging modules in the 
binaries and patch the source code at our leasure.  We're not claiming 
to be NCSA 1.4/1.5 or quasi-Netsite compatible, which is all that 
these modules offer.  It's a bit damned late in the day to be doing 
this, and what happens if we find another flaw in 5 hours time?  We'll 
end up patching 1.0.0 till christmas and beyond.

Clearly we've fucked up the binary release badly.  The binaries should
only have had enough functionality enabled to emulate 1.3, in my opinion.

It seems we do one of:

a)	roll the binaries back to 1.3 compliance (and nothing more)
	and also publicise the fact.

b)	nothing, because were bound to need to roll 1.0.1 in 2 weeks
	time whatever we decide to do now.

c)	release 1.0.1 immediately (source and binaries), and publicise 
	the fact.  That is, releasing a set of changes which aren't
	tested and which have not been subject to the usual strictures
	and which gives people more functionality than they need if
	all they're doing is upgrading from NCSA 1.3.

I think (a) is the best option, primarily cuz anyone who wants to use 
the additional logging mechanisms will down the source, recompile it 
and then configure the beast properly if they have half a clue.

Mind you I would say that wouldn't I?



View raw message