httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject RE: alpha 2 going out tomorrow.
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:45:16 GMT

The alpha is including the code as it stands now.  To make modifications
the same day as the alpha that are actual coding changes (not compiling
changes) does not sit well with me.  We will be releasing another alpha in
a week or two.  Any fixes that do not make it into today's alpha will get
into the next one.  People expect things to change between alpha releases.
Don't worry, we'll get it all done.


On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> > I'll look at it after the alpha.  I am grabbing the most 
> > recent tree and
> > running with it after testing.  All the other patches you 
> > have submitted
> > in the last few days will get reviewed and committed right after the
> > alpha.  I don't want to take any chances that we miss the 
> > alpha because of
> > a new bug.
> Thanks for the pre-alpha quick looks, and TIA for committing them.
> As long as declaration of ap_get_file_mtime shall change, I would
> like to see alpha 2 released with those sorts of fundimentals.  
> Specific bug fixes in apr don't worry me 1/10th as much.  If we 
> are asking folks to beat on/experiment with/correct the alpha, 
> let's provide the cleanest declarations.  If apr will not return 
> time_t's - I would advise against advertising that we do.
> That's why you haven't seen my Win95 GetFileAttributesEx workaround,
> waiting to post it till post-alpha 2.  (Besides, I don't like the
> workaround myself).
> Please state that alpha 2 does _not_ work with Win95, that it is
> written for NT threading and IO completion ports; but that we 
> are interested in patches that work around the limitations of Win95.
> As for a workaround to Win95 CreateIOCompletionPort, I'm really
> starting to think, we don't need 4 ports (and 98 offers no better
> reliability than 95) - do we want 2 mpm's (or a late binding mpm 
> code path resolution in pre_config) for 95/98 and NT/2000?  I'm
> thinking these paths are so horridly different, and the workaround 
> run-time testing will bog the NT performance.  If we setup the 
> callbacks at runtime to hook to the NT or 9x code, we can optimize 
> the NT path without worring about the 9x path.
> That's not a thought for alpha 2, but at least consider my first 
> point anyway,
> Bill

Ryan Bloom               
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message