httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Sat, 08 Sep 2001 05:38:45 GMT
From: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:32 AM


> This has been a whirlwind situation, so let's take a few breathes
> here... It's not a crucial componant of 2.0, so again, why rush?

I'm going to chime in on the other side of the coin.  It's not a component
of 2.0 whatsoever.  The question some of us have raised is, should it be?
And IMHO, gz was introduced too late in the game for 2.0.

If we can get 2.0 to GA quality (and I believe this will happen in the next
45 days if most developers are focused on either fixing bugs, or hacking the
2.0 tree with their own extensions and modules, including gz :) then we can
debate 2.1.  Everyone would like to see 2.1 sooner than the 3 years it's 
taken to go from 1.3 to 2.0 ;)

Ryan's veto has effectively tabled this for now.  I'm begining to respect
this from the perspective of putting a release in peoples hands.  It can
be introduced soon afterwards, or if someone likes, a subproject can be
created.  This has been too long people, let's put 2.0 to bed.

BTW --- sorry if my stream-of-consiousness is out of sync - i've been torn
away from the list most of this week.  Looking forward to two things this
weekend, pushing the 500 out of directory_walk all the way out to the core
handler (so other modules that aren't ported to the 2.0-map_to_storage
concept continue to work) and moving the optimizations from Location into
directory walk.  I'm still leaving that port for proxy and file walk to
anyone who cares to patch, since those are simple, by example.

Bill


Mime
View raw message