httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: minor features and changes
Date Sun, 08 Jun 1997 04:12:27 GMT
> On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > > There are various little features and changes that have been backing up
> > > for an awfully long time.  While we figure out a path for the major
> > > changes that are going to be made in 1.3 and for 2.0, I don't see why
> > > development shouldn't move ahead.
> > > 
> > > Any objections to me (and hopefully others...) starting to get moving
> > > again on patches and changes that are relatively minor things compared to
> > > the API and threads and abstraction related? 
> >  
> > Have we decided on a path ?
> > 
> > it's all terribly confusing from the various threads going on.
> > 
> > My preference..
> > 
> > Develop 1.3 and 2.0 in parallel and be prepared for emergency 1.2.X's.
> > 
> > 2.0      major revamp
> > 1.3      1.2 + features - to live as long as there's support for it.
> > 1.2.x    important bugfixes only - no features.
> 
> My problem is that this makes it even harder for 2.0 to ever happen.  For
> the longest time, the plan for 2.0 has included multithreading, NT, and an
> improved API.  Now much or most of that is perhaps going into 1.3.  I have
> not followed the NT discussions, but I am wondering if 1.3 should be
> either a make-do NT port (ie. minimal changes to have a reasonably
> functional server on NT without rewriting more code than necessary) or 1.3
> should be skipped and just push for 2.0. 
> 
> I am concerned that an attempt at a "quick" 1.3 release for NT will end up
> taking just as long as going for 2.0 would and still leave things somewhat
> fragmented. 

It is my understanding that Ben has in hand an integrated NT source 
that actually works. I don't get the impression that we are talking 
about a long time to get this integrated. 

Secondly, I think that a major-minor revision would be appropriate 
for the addition of the NT code base.

> What about a 1.2-NT release?  How much of the current development group is
> interested in NT work?  Do most people belong to one group or the other?
> Would it be better for those who want a NT release soon to do it in a
> seperate, not-for-unix tree as opposed to an integrated 1.3?
> 
> I do not object to work going on in the pre-2.0 area while 2.0 is begin
> developed; in fact I support that and think the extra effort of
> integrating changes not related to the API or threading, etc. is easily
> managed.




Mime
View raw message