httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
Date Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:15:24 GMT

I agree 100%.  We have a real problem right now, because there are a lot
of fixes that made it into 1.3, that have never been ported to 2.0.   I
am completely against any changes in 1.3 that do not get ported to 2.0
immediately.

Ryan

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Well.... Before I do that, I think I'll hack mod_info to better
> handle it as well.
> 
> What I _DON'T_ want is it to be in 1.3, but not in 2.0. So if
> we decide not to have this capability in 2.0, then adding it
> to 1.3 does seem, at least to me, as worthwhile.
> 
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Okay.  Like I said, I'm not going to stand in the way.  Feel free to
> > commit.  :-)
> > 
> > Ryan
> > 
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > > The format of the files is pretty much immaterial. It's whether
> > > the config parser front-end is directory aware and will
> > > dive in :)
> > > 
> > > rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It should be almost the exact same change in 2.0 as it is in 1.3.  I just
> > > > know that we keep talking about changing our config system to an XML
> > > > system, and I want to make sure we keep it possible to easily change
> > > > config systems.
> > > > 
> > > > Ryan
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In some ways I agree, but the method that the patch adds is one most
admins
> > > > > already know and use (certainly within the unix world) so it's not
a huge
> > > > > leap and is comfortingly familiar, whereas include directives aren't
always
> > > > > that obvious...
> > > > > 
> > > > > How much more complex would it make 2.0?  I know the config system
is
> > > > > different...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just a quick 2p...
> > > > > 
> > > > > david
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <rbb@covalent.net>
> > > > > To: "Apache (new-httpd)" <new-httpd@apache.org>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:27 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are we bringing our config system too far?  I'll put on my Dean
hat and
> > > > > > say that this could be done with the existing config system,
by just
> > > > > > adding an INCLUDE directive, and putting another file in the
included
> > > > > > file.  Having spent some time in our config parser, I would
prefer to make
> > > > > > our config system simpler, not more complex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am definately -1 (vote not veto) for 1.3 and -0.5 for 2.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems like a logical extension.  Do we want to do this
for 1.3 though?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for 2.0
> > > > > > > +0 for 1.3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > david
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here's my suggested patch for PR #6397. It's a bit
more in keeping
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > current coding, and maybe a bit more vocal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Index: src/CHANGES
> > > > > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/CHANGES,v
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > ___
> > > > > > Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> > > > > > 406 29th St.
> > > > > > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> > > > 406 29th St.
> > > > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > ===========================================================================
> > >    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
> > >                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
> > Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> > 406 29th St.
> > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ===========================================================================
>    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> 


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message