httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c connection.c
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2001 21:50:07 GMT
Personally, I support the effort. I don't think Ryan has divvied it up quite
"right", but I'm not into multi-protocol. As long as HTTP service comes from
somewhere in the code, I don't mind if it isn't quite right (i.e. I'll point
out where I think HTTP-specific things moved into the core, as I did before,
but won't fuss overmuch). At some point in the future, I'll want to assist
with the protocol separation, if only to satisfy that little "Things Should
Be Modularized" voice in my head.

And yes... people should work on what they'd like. And IMO, I don't mind if
the beta is delayed another week. Properly organizing code should help
reduce long term bugs, so I see a net bonus.


On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:33:05PM -0800, wrote:
> > > > You mean that out of all of the multitudinous areas you care
> > > > about, there is not even *one* that does not require such massive
> > > > changes and high probability of breaking the build?  That you
> > > > could work on without disrupting other people's efforts?
> > >
> > > Please do not tell me how much/and what I care about.
> >
> > Huh?  *You* said it, not I.
> Yes, I made the statement that this is what I care about.  You then
> suggested that I should not work on it, in favor of something else that I
> care about.  I am telling you that this is what I care about currently.
> There is no other work I wish to do right now.
> > > I moved a bit of code from one location to another.  I didn't
> > > modify ANY code at all, I just moved it.  I do not believe that
> > > I have disrupted other people's work
> >
> > Um, David has already had to fix something, has he not?  You
> David had to fix something completely unrelated to this change.
> > admit that the Windows build would almost certainly be broken
> > by your change.  That it was not is excellent.  But any platforms
> > for which the build is broken will require someone to turn
> > away from whatever else it may be working on in order to
> > fix it.
> >
> > > although I am close to making it possible for people who want
> > > to work on protocol modules to be able to do so without needing
> > > to have the http module.
> >
> > As I said in the beginning, I question whether that should be
> > a goal for the first beta.
> >
> > Even if it did not break the build, a change of this magnitude
> > should be reviewed.  Which takes time.  Which delays the beta.
> > I think it should have waited until we had beta 1 out.  That is all.
> That is your opinion, and you should feel free to back out the change, if
> you so choose.  Assuming that you do not, I plan on continuing to work on
> this, because it is what I care about right now.
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom               
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Stein,

View raw message