httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <and...@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
Subject Re: One more patch for 1.0.0
Date Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:16:28 GMT
> >Adam, is this patch in response to a reported bug?  It seems to be a
> >feature enhancement.  I'm very wary of introducing anything into the
> >source of the 'stable' server that is not *directly* inspired by the
> >need to stop the beast from core-dumping.
> 
> Then Apache development will grind to a halt, if in fact it has not already
> done so. I really cannot understand this attitude; it's almost saying
> `this server is so complicated that even an Einstein couldn't modify it
> succesfully'. I could probably accept it if as a result there was
> some positive action on the development version, but there isn't.
> Beware; at this rate we may have another Shambhala (or even another Apache).

Count to 10, it's almost christmas ;)

1)	There are now 2 source trees:

	a)	Apache 1.0.1 (the result of applying for_Apache_1.0.0's
		patches to 1.0.0), this is for show stopper bugs only and
		functional enhancements don't belong here.  This is the
		tree we're playing with at the moment because there are some
		nasty bugs in the version of the software we've just released
		and we need to get them sorted out sharpish.

	b)	Apache 1.1.0a1 (the result of applying the first round of
		blue-sky, gee-wiz, wouldn't it be cool if-patches to 1.0.0)
		This *is* for functional enhancements.  And the latest use-at
		your-own-risk betas will be derived from it.

2)	The idea is to keep the 1.0.1 tree for bug fixes only (yawn, boring),
	and to apply all our creative juices to enhancing the 1.1.0a1 tree
	(kuhl, interesting, no sleep this weekend),  rolling in any bug fixes
	that 1.0.1 throws up subsequently.

3)	If you want positive action in developing *new* functionality on the
	1.1.0a1 tree then go and do it, there are some patches already there
	and I know that lots of people have new ideas forthcoming.

4)	People are looking at the CVS system as a means for maintining the
	source tree, I dunno what the implications will be for the sources.
	I'm waiting to see what happens.

> Presumably, therefore, you veto all the patches currently available.

I don't think you believe this to be true.

> Death of Internet predicted; more at 11.
> 
>  David.

Ay.

Mime
View raw message