httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: Feature freeze?
Date Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:32:08 GMT
I think a config syntax redesign is in order.  But if we rewrite that too
then what's left to call it apache?  :)

I am still not against a 1.3 -- but a 1.3 only if someone wants to step up
and be release manager and let the rest of the group go off and start 2.0.
Essentially a 1.3 that includes whatever contrib we get, and that's about
it.  Something like INN 1.4unoff1 through INN 1.4unoff4. 


On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > Things are being held up here by "one more release" before...
> Yes. Apache 1.2 was supposed to be done by August.
> > I'm sure people who have been around longer than I have can tell great
> > stories about what was to be the last release before 2.0.
> 1.1.0.
> We can do 2.0 in the same amount of time as we can do 1.3 - with or
> without the RST code, probably, though I'd rather use it if we
> can. The Apache Group cannot do things quickly.
> > What really has to be figured out is what do we have for a code base to
> > start with?  Can RST's implementation be used?  If so, should it?  If not,
> > who will be writing the alternative?  The base of it essentially has to be
> > done by one or two people I think.  
> If RST's cannot be used, or even if it can, we need to divide the
> "major enhancements" up, and probably assign someone to write the bulk
> of the code and oversee it. We have at least these three:
> 1. Threading. RST's code has this. Otherwise I nominate Ben. He seems
>    to be the most well-versed in threading and that sort of thing here.
> 2. I/O (filtering, stacked IO, mmaping files, whatever). RST's codes
>    have done this, with sfio or bsdio. Anyone want to volunteer to
>    coordinate this?
> 3. API enhancements. This includes additional phases, and new
>    functions to go along with the new I/O stuff. RST's code didn't
>    really have this, so we'll have to write it anyway. I'd like to
>    manage this part of it, actually, if no one minds.
> At any rate, I think 1.2 has at least one or two more betas left in
> it. 1.2b6 and 1.2b7 have/will have a lot of minor changes in them that
> should be tested. 1.2b7 may end up being the release candidate, but we
> shouldn't advertiste it as such.
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server
> URL:

View raw message