httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter J. Cranstone" <>
Subject RE: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap
Date Sat, 08 Sep 2001 14:34:27 GMT
>> I do not believe that adding new functionality to the server is the 
>> way to get a release out the door.

Ryan, I agree with you on this point. Apache has to get to solid beta
before ANY new functionality is included. I believe I have backed you on
this subject before. It is simply too much to ask of everyone to get MPM
and Filtering working and then throw in something new to the mix which
has been untested and unproven.

When we released mod_gzip (through official channels at Apache) we did
so for Apache 1.3.x It took 6 months for the code to get to it's current
release and it's now considered stable. It's been tested by tens of
thousands of people. Kevin and I did nothing for 6 months after the
release except respond to issues and education of the HTTP 1.1 content
encoding spec.

There is a reason BOTH of us have insisted we will not release mod_gzip
for 2.x until Apache is in beta. You have more than enough to do to get
the whole server stable and in use by your user base before we blast
another module into the mix.

Kevin and I have been on this forum for years. Sure we've broken a few
rules but then that's what you'd expect from people who are going to
push the limits. The flame war is over, they never last more than a few
days anyway and business is returning to normal. Both Kevin and I are
passionate about compression on the web and have no need to see Apache
fail. We want you to succeed and we devote company resources to that
goal. It would be irresponsible to suddenly throw mod_gzip into 2.x
until you have it stable. 

It's another distraction which no one needs right now.

Even though my vote doesn't count -1 on including mod_gz for now.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Bloom [] 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:08 PM
To:; Rodent of Unusual Size
Subject: Re: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap

On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
>   Ryan Bloom <> excited the electrons to say:
> > On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > Current consensus appears to be to add it to modules/experimental.
> >
> > I don't see how that could possibly be the consensus, since I have 
> > -1 in the STATUS file.
> And I pointed out that I think the bases you quoted for your veto were

> specious if the module in question is in /experimental/. :-)
> Since several people seem to be in favour of putting it into 
> experimental, I wonder how much effort is going to go into trying to 
> get you to rescind your veto instead of into real work on 2.0.. :-D

I would hope none.  I am incredibly unlikely to rescind my veto.  I do
believe that adding new functionality to the server is the way to get a
release out the door.

I also do not believe that we should be making this decision right now.
I am 100% in agreement with Jim about this.  We should table this whole
discussion until emotions have calmed, the patent issue has been finally
resolved (Dirk told me today that he knows of two patents, and he would
post about them), and Apache 2.0 has shipped.

Putting the module in experimental essentially means that at some point,
we expect to move it out of that directory.  I do not know that is the

I would also point out that the consensus as I count it doesn't have
this going into the server at all right now.  I am counting five people
who have said on list that they would rather this module didn't go into
the server at this point (although I am the only one to veto).  I also
count five who have said they would like it to go into the server,
either in filters or experimental. That does not sound like any kind of
consensus.  My count is below.

Would prefer not:  Ryan, Bill, Doug, Jim, Ben
Would prefer: Ken, Ian, Justin, Cliff, Greg

I may have missed one or two, but even if I did, that would not be a
strong majority.  

Ryan ______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom
Covalent Technologies

View raw message