httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: 1.3.13 - Complete some Win32 PRs???
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:35:10 GMT
> From: Bill Stoddard []
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:49 AM
> > First off, the list has grown fairly long in changes 1.3.13/dev
> > Many of these changes are Win32, so I don't know that there is
> > sufficient momentum to begin targeting a date for 1.3.13.
> >
> > Q.  [all] Are we moving to set a date to 1.3.13?
> >
> I'd prefer to hold off on a 1.3.13 for perhaps another month 
> or so. As you have pointed
> out, there are a number of patches to integrate. The problem 
> is that it takes quite a bit
> of effort to roll a release and what time folks do have is 
> being spent on Apache 2.0.

Agreed, that's why I want to close all the 'blatent' problems.
I don't want to waste much time on things like async CGI and
such.  Only the features that will move nicely into 2.0.
> Some of these changes are quite extensive thus require 
> detailed review, especially since
> they are going into the 1.3 code base. I'll review the 
> smaller patches for sure.  Can't
> make any promises on the mod_proxy patch (which I did look at BTW).

My point is, if it is broken in a Windows-only code path, and
we have a fix to apply - let's fix.  Those of us using the /dev
build in production will find the issue before the release.  If
not - it was broke before - it's broke now.  (And thx, btw!)

And I think big chunks of the mod_proxy patch are complete, but
if I remember right only the failed directory stat is still an
issue, which is a small patch.

> > I feel the ASF does not take the 1.3/Win32 port seriously.
> Uummm, I wouldn't quite put it that way. Most of us are Unix 
> developers. I am pretty much the primary Windows developer 
> and I only do it part time.  More developers focusing on the
> Windows port, like yourself, will help a lot.

What I am saying is there is minimal feedback to Win32 on the
list (well, not counting the last few contentious months :~)
This blanket categorization really lead into...

> > Many patches have taken months to hit the tree, and other
> > appropriate patches have been ignored -without comment-.
> > This is really not acceptable.
> Guilty, guilty, guilty as charged. We as a group have really 
> fallen down on this. At a
> minimum, folks with commit privs should update the STATUS 
> file with info & pointers to
> submitted patches. I can only say I will try to do better in 
> the future.

Absolved.  The . is, just 'cause it sits in STATUS doesn't mean
anything happens to it.

> I am really happy to have you contributing to the project. 
> Beginnings are often a bit
> rocky and we are a persnickity bunch, but you've accepted 
> advice graciously and we are
> getting more of your patches rolled into the code as a 
> result.

Read my response to Ryan... it's the others who have good code
sitting in the archives or bug list that I'd like to see ack'd
and committed, or asked to rework for valid reasons.

This would be a project for about two weeks from now, and 
I'd be pumping in fixed up docs as well, since I'm really 
fed up answering the same Q's in (some 
valid, some pathetic.)  The big point is, the users are out 
there, and we owe them cleaned code where someone already 
went to the trouble and contributed the cleanup.

View raw message