httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: On 2.0 again.
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:30:48 GMT

> > It's more than just sendfile.  When we compiled apache with -pthread, and
> > using the prefork MPM, we had threads go off to no-where.  I am not
> > willing to say we can't go beta until is running a threaded
> > MPM, because that may not be possible.
> >
> > Also, this isn't our model anymore, and this discussion should be on
> > new-httpd, not members.
> >
> Ooops, new-httpd dropped out of my first reply to this thread. Apologies.
> Humm, I believe I implicitly assume a release status of "beta" is basically a
> statement regarding "quality" of the server ("Quality" in the sense of "Zen
> and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance").  Is this not the model we are
> following? My goal was to get a threaded server running to facilitate driving
> bugs out of that MPM; improving the quality of a major feature of Apache 2.0.
> If "beta" status is not a statement of quality, then I don't understand why we
> go to the trouble of making the designation in the first place. Perhaps I
> should write up a neat little random naming facility that makes up status
> names. Next release can be alpha 1000, then maybe beta 75, then golden
> followed by alpha centauri :-)

I am having a hard time understanding why we are requiring our first beta
to be seg fault free as well.  The server works.  It has been running on for at least four or five days.  This is not GA code.  We are
stable, and things seem to work.  A beta cycle means just that.  We
believe this is better than alpha code, but not quite completely finished,
use at your own risk.

If we wait until the code has zero problems, then what is the benchmark
for GA code?


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

View raw message