httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <>
Subject Re: 1.3 veto ?
Date Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:07:29 GMT
> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> > +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.
> If 2.0 can be turned around in the short time claimed, then that's
> great. As Alexei says, 1.2's 1 month turned into 6. What will 2.0's
> 6 months turn into ?

As long as everyone is speaking their mind...

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with a 6 month development cycle.
1.2 is cleaning up quite nice. Undoubtedly the best release we have
pulled off to date. One of the primary goals of this group was to
share experience and time to maintain lean, mean server machines.
We can manage to do that without _ever_ making releases.

Taking our time to make these releases hopefully means that we spend
less time fixing problems with the release. Take for example 1.1.1.
Notice that it is '.1'.

View raw message