httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@n2k.com>
Subject Re: 1.3 veto ?
Date Fri, 10 Jan 1997 02:28:16 GMT
Alexei Kosut liltingly intones:
> 
> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:
> 
> > Seriously, I've no objections to a 1.3/2.0 split at this point. There's
> > plenty of mileage left in the 1.0 code and plenty of changes that are
> > in the queue but feature-frozen out of 1.2. It's gonna be a long wait for
> > 2.0
> > 
> > Alexei, please remind me what your objections are to 1.3.
> 
> They are the same objections I had to 1.2. Time. We have code for 2.0
> that is ready to go. RST wrote it, Ben and I (and maybe others) have
> tested it; it works. In July, we had a number of patches that we
> wanted to put into Apache before 2.0, so we agreed to make a 1.2,
> spend one month doing it, and another month releasing it. 1.2.0 was
> supposed to be out by September. But it wasn't. We kept adding stuff -
> and I was as guilty of that as anyone - and the date kept getting
> pushed back and back.
> 
> ...etc.

+1 for this. I agree with Alexei. We're fundamentally changing the core code
for 2.0, and the faster we do that, the faster we can move on with
enhancements. The proxy could use a lot of stuff now, but it will only get
bug fixes until 2.0, since it has to become HTTP/1.1 compliant first of all.
The proxy goal for 1.2 was to become solid for the protocols it supports, and
that's done. We really need to get 1.2 solidified and out the door, at this
point.

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
This is the LAST time I take travel suggestions from Ray Bradbury!

Mime
View raw message