httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3 WARNING-NT.TXT
Date Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:54:39 GMT
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >That's nice, but it isn't a decision you can unilaterally make after it
> >was agreed that it should be there.  
> >
> >It is appropriate and desirable to have.
> First of all, it is a decision that I can unilaterally make.

Find, then I can unilaterally decide to add it back.  I am not doing it at
this time because it is a childish game to try to enforce one person's
opinion by committing, but I will object strenuously to any release
without it until justufication is shown, and if necessary -1 the "patch"
that removed the warning file so it will have to be backed out until
agreement is reached. 

Come up, this is supposed to be a group.

> Second, we only agreed to add it to 1.3.1, not to every future
> build of Apache on Win32.  

We decided to add it until such a time as it wasn't necessary.  I have
seen nothing to suggest it isn't still necessarily.

> Third, what it says is childish and
> inappropriate for any piece of distributed software.  


It is inappropriate for distributed software to say that it is beta and
isn't as stable and secure on one platform as it is on another!?!?

> Fourth,
> Apache is already of higher quality than most pieces of Win32
> software, and no other software that I know of carries such a

I don't care how crappy other Win32 software is.  There are serious issues
still present with Apache on Win32 that mean it is unstable and it does
have security holes in it.  That is simply a fact.

> warning during the install process.  Finally, it is only serving
> as an excuse for not doing all that we are capable of doing to
> make it a better release.

Erm... I don't think that the people who have worked hard to make Apache
on Unix stable and secure over the years will like Apache on Win32 being
presented as production quality code and defaming the Apache name.

If you think you can make it better, and I'm sure you can, then please do.
But you can't just say "oh, it should be better so we shouldn't tell
people it isn't."

> We now have more active Win32 programmers than Unix programmers.
> If there is something specific that is wrong with the release, then
> either fix it or include it in the readme.  People using windows
> installers expect to see such information in the readme, not as
> some lame disclaimer.

People on Win32 expect to ignore the readme completely.

> Speaking of which, is it possible to update and test the windows install
> scripts before we tag the release and tarball?  I don't like the way
> it gets scrambled together and then committed after release, but there's
> not much I can do about it without the IS2 license.

There is no "the" IS2 license.  Last I knew someone (Ben?) has a
personal/company/etc. license that he is using to build it.

View raw message