httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject voting results for 1.4/2.0 debate.
Date Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:15:31 GMT

I said I'd wait until Tuesday night to tally, so here it is.  

> Question I: Should the next non-point release of Apache be based on the
> hybrid "apache-apr" prototype?
>   YES  [16]     NO [ ]

So, resolved, resoundingly.  Cool.

> Question II: Should the next release of Apache be called 1.4 or 2.0,
> even if multithreading and a portability API are the only new additions?
>   1.4  [3]       2.0  [13] 

It looks like the 2.0 crowd has it.  Resolved.

> Question III: If you answered "yes" to question I, and consider 'N' to
> be either 1.4 or 2.0 based on your answer to question II, is the
> following a reasonable set of actions to take?
>   a) Rename the "apache-2.0" CVS module to "apache-nspr".
>      YES  [16]       NO  [ ]
>   b) Move the "2.0 design documents" from apache-nspr to a new
>      directory under apache-site   
>      YES  [15]       NO  [ ]

Resolved.  I'll endeavor to do the above.

>   c) Create a new "apache-N" module, import APACHE_1_3_6 as tagged
>      from the apache_1.3 module, and patch it to bring it up to apache-apr
>      functionality.
>      YES  [8]       NO  [5]

This was a confusing issue to vote on, since some people voted "yes" with
the caveat that it should be a 1.3.7, and some voted "no" since they'd
have preferred 1.3.7 be the tag instead of 1.3.6.  So I'll make an
interpretation of the results which says that we should endeavor to
produce a 1.3.7 release sometime in the near future, and that the
APACHE_1_3_7 tag will be the basis the apache-2.0 module will use.  Anyone

>   d) *Alternately to IIIc:* create the "apache-N" module and import the
>      apache-apr/pthreads tree from the "apache-apr" module.
>      YES  [ ]       NO  [13]

That was clear.

>   e) "apache-apr" should be kept around a project aimed at developing a
>      generic portability layer for other Apache projects (or even
>      non-Apache).
>      YES  [5]       NO  [8]

Sounds like this should be tabled for the time being; for now, APR will be
a part of the apache-2.0 module.

I'm about to leave for three days of questionable internet access (i.e., I
don't know if I'll be able to check mail) so I'm not going to make any
drastic actions tonight.  Here's what I'll do this weekend, though, based
on the results of this poll:

a) rename CVS module "apache-2.0" to "apache-nspr".  Fix all dependencies
in things like the from-cvs cron job builds, etc.  One will need to run a
simple perl script to fix your */CVS/Repository files, which I will

b) move the 2.0 design documents to the web site.

Once the dust settles on that, I'll recreate an "apache-2.0" CVS module.
Though we shouldn't put anything in it until Apache 1.3.7 is tagged.

Thanks for participating in the vote; the group's position was actually
more definite than I thought it was.


View raw message