httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: minor features and changes
Date Sun, 08 Jun 1997 03:56:02 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. 

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