httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com>
Subject Re: 1.3 veto ?
Date Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:28:31 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 ?

<rant>
Nobody seems to take any notice of timetables - that's the major problem IMO.
Another problem is the sheer lack of input/feedback from 90% of the people
on this list. Unless tey are contributing in some other way, I think the
least everyone can do is testcode snapshots every week or two, even if it's
just to see if things compile. 1.2 would be released by know had it gotten
the wider testing it could have.

What makes people think things are going to be better developing 2.0 ?

Is anyone prepared to set a timetable *and* make sure we stick to it ?
If there is, we might not need 1.3, if there isn't ....
</rant>

--
 If you are installing the Jaz drive under a system other than
 Windows/Dos or Windows95, refer to the section on "Other
 Operating Systems" in the electronic manual (MANUAL.EXE) which
 is located on the "install" floppy diskette for Windows/Dos.
				- Iomega Jaz manual.


Mime
View raw message