Message-ID: <34D0D2FD.DA6DBC37@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:05:33 +0000
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Organization: A.L. Digital Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: 2.0 and 1.3
References: <199801290114.UAA26810@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> >
> > But I don't understand the point of this.  If you are going to do this why
> > not just recreate 2.0 at that point?
> >
> 
> Sure it would be easier, but it's already created and setup. With
> just a little bit of work we don't need to recreate the CVS tree.

Yeah, but in the meantime we get every patch an extra time, no? If we
aren't going to actually use the 2.0 tree, let's just blow it away until
we're ready for it.

BTW, I agree that 2.0 needs a core rewrite. Can't quite decide whether
an empty tree is the way to go, but then, if I had my way it'd be in C++
anyway.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache