Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 14171 invoked by uid 6000); 15 Dec 1999 17:16:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 13757 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1999 17:16:27 -0000 Received: from slarti.muc.de (193.149.48.10) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 15 Dec 1999 17:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 25427 invoked by uid 66); 15 Dec 1999 17:16:07 -0000 Received: from en by slarti with UUCP; Wed Dec 15 17:16:07 1999 -0000 Received: by en1.engelschall.com (Sendmail 8.9.3+3.2W) for new-httpd@apache.org id SAA35288; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:15:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:15:23 +0100 From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: 1.3.10 Message-ID: <19991215181523.A35266@engelschall.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Organization: Engelschall, Germany. X-Web-Homepage: http://www.engelschall.com/ X-PGP-Public-Key: https://www.engelschall.com/ho/rse/pgprse.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 00 C9 21 8E D1 AB 70 37 DD 67 A2 3A 0A 6F 8D A5 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Status: O In article <199912151415.JAA13626@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote: >> What about the following plan: >> >> 1. Releasing 1.3.10 soon, without IPv6, but WITH EAPI, disabled by >> default, ifdefed, and titled as "experimental". >> 2. Develop IPv6 slowly, without any pressure, and collect feedback and >> bugs of 1.3.10, including possible problems with EAPI. >> 3. Releasing 1.3.11 later, somewhere in 2000, with IPv6. EAPI will be >> still disabled by default, and also ifdefed, but may be not >> "experimental" anymore. > > The more feedback we've had, the more it's becoming "obvious" that the > EAPI patches will make things easier for one package (mod_ssl) and > more difficult for others (such as the other SSL packages) that > rely on patching the actual Apache source code. With that in mind, > I'm -1 on including EAPI with 1.3.10, and maybe even for the > rest of the 1.3.x tree. > > I'll adjust STATUS later today :) Sorry, but it is balderdash that EAPI makes the life of anything harder. The only argument which was given was that Ben's job of adjusting Apache-SSL _once_ for Apache 1.3.10 would cost him more time than usual. That's a true argument and might be nasty, of course. But it's a job which just have to be done _ONCE_ and not by the users and so IMHO shouldn't actually count for the question whether we include EAPI or not into Apache 1.3.10. And even if you want that it counts, I even volunteer to do the adjustments for Ben's Apache-SSL once (although I'm rather sure Ben wants to do it himself, of course). So don't vote on the issue based on this point, please. Consider other things first, please. Ralf S. Engelschall rse@engelschall.com www.engelschall.com