Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 03:48:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Pause to Consider
In-Reply-To: <014e01bf366d$e6f60040$0a1aa8c0@jetnet.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911240344470.10639-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
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

Why go through all the documentation process? That's just throwing a
hurdle at what (IMO) is a non-existent problem.

I say: let Manoj code it, and we just review it as we normally do. If
there is something wrong, then we fix it. If something is right, then way
cool!

Heck. Let's say that Manoj spends a month on this stuff, but it just never
works out. All right. We toss it. Just because Manoj is working on it
doesn't mean that we *have* to use it. Many people want to (I do!), but
let's be real here... Writing up a document for something that is by the
seat-of-the-pants is not going to be useful. I may be putting words in
Manoj's mouth, but based on what he has said, he is very new to the
autoconf toolkit and much of what he is doing is exploration/learning. How
can he document what he is going to do if he doesn't know himself?

Drop the doc issue. Let some coding go forward. See what happens as code
is produced. Comment/review/improve/toss. Standard Operating Procedure.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, David Reid wrote:

> Guys,
> 
> This isn't meant as an attack on anyone...
> 
> But, can we all take a few moments to consider what's going on with the
> autoconf stuff?
> 
> I think we all agree that it's a huge change and one we need to be very very
> careful about how we do it.  Manoj has done some good work on laying a
> foundation but in truth how many people can say they're 100% with him on all
> of his intentions/plans?
> 
> There are a number of people on this list who have done battle with autoconf
> a number of times and have a great deal of experience to bring to the
> discussion.  I know people need to code and without the code we wouldn't
> have a server, but with such a huge far-reaching change we need to be sure
> we're doing it the right way.  Apache 2.0 will be around for a number of
> years and the work done now will be with us for at least that long.  Several
> people have pointed out that we need to have code that we can maintain over
> that period.
> 
> So, I guess what I want is for Manoj and Ryan (and all those who've helped)
> to write down how the planned autoconf system will work.  This can then be
> discussed and everyone who knows about autoconf can give their opinion and
> do their usual job on it.  I'd suggest we set a time period for the
> discussions, say 72 hours.
> 
> I know this seems drastic but all the discussions on this group over the
> last couple of days seem to point to it being necessary.  We don't need to
> rush into doing something that we'll regret for a number of years...
> 
> d.
> 

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/