Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 15163 invoked by uid 6000); 25 Jun 1999 21:58:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 15157 invoked from network); 25 Jun 1999 21:58:54 -0000 Received: from myth7.stanford.edu (171.64.15.21) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 1999 21:58:54 -0000 Received: (from akosut@localhost) by myth7.Stanford.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.7) id OAA23025; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:58:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Alexei Kosut To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: apr and 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 On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Ryan Bloom wrote: > My wish list for 2.0 pretty much is in line with Bill's, with one minor > change. On any platform that supports it, I would like the hybrid mpm to > be the default. I think the hybrid server is a big enough win that it is > worth it. And, I think the mpm changes allow us to put asynch I/O into > 2.1 without any problem. I just want to see 2.0 released soon, becuase I > think if we wait too long, we will never release it. We've waited over three years, we can stand to wait a little more... Seriously, I just had a flashback to 1997, recalling the good laugh I was having over the thought of an Apache 2000. I mean, really, we'd planned to have 2.0 out by December 1996. Heck, we even had a good chunk of the code written (rst's apache-XX). There's no way it would take *another* three years. Only Microsoft has those kind of release schedules (note that Windows 2000 nee NT 5.0 was also supposed to be released in late 1996). Ironic, huh? -- Alexei Kosut Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache *