Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 22720 invoked by uid 6000); 19 Apr 1999 12:44:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 22709 invoked from network); 19 Apr 1999 12:44:10 -0000 Received: from fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com (HELO fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com) (204.146.167.235) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 1999 12:44:10 -0000 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id IAA36582 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:07 -0400 Received: from webdev7.raleigh.ibm.com (webdev7.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.72.37]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id IAA30552 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:33:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Ryan Bloom To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: VOTE: apache-apr -> (1.4|2.0) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org > Question I: Should the next non-point release of Apache be based on the > hybrid "apache-apr" prototype? > YES [ ] NO [ ] > > 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 [ ] 2.0 [ ] > > 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 [ ] NO [ ] > > b) Move the "2.0 design documents" from apache-nspr to a new > directory under apache-site > YES [ ] NO [ ] > > 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 [ ] NO [ ] > > d) *Alternately to IIIc:* create the "apache-N" module and import the > apache-apr/pthreads tree from the "apache-apr" module. > YES [ ] NO [ ] > > 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 [ ] NO [ ] > > > Vote early, vote often! > > Brian > > ####### > > Ballot for Apache 1.4/2.0 directions: > > I: YES [X] NO [ ] > II: 1.4 [ ] 2.0 [X] > IIIa: YES [X] NO [ ] > IIIb: YES [X] NO [ ] > IIIc: YES [X] NO [ ] -- I would tag and roll 1.3.7 and use it. > IIId: YES [ ] NO [X] > IIIe: YES [X] NO [ ] -- Apache can always grab the latest version, but tying the PR to apache may not always be the best idea. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com 4205 S Miami Blvd RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to see beginners doing complicated patterns.