httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:03:16 GMT
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:56 PM

> On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 02:49:56PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > If the module is a part of the server, then it must work before the server
> > is production ready.  You can't have a module that doesn't work in a server
> > that is going GA, it doesn't make sense.  You will find if you read the
> > archives, that we have cancelled releases in the past, because a single
> > module did not work correctly.  Anytime you put something into the core,
> > you take the very real chance of delaying the core server.
> I thought that we didn't follow the policy with certain modules.
> AIUI, mod_ssl is exempt from this.  Why not mod_gz as well?  Or, as 
> some have suggested - stick it in modules/experimental?  

mod_ssl is not exempt from this.  It was decided over a year ago that ssl should
be supported in Apache 2.0, and about a year ago that became possible due to
relaxation of the crypto export regulations for open source within the US.

The mod_ssl will _not_ be unsupported or incomplete when we go GA.  The fact is,
mod_ssl itself was a very stable piece of code.  It has undergone a facelift in
conversion to 2.0, and this is far more likely to expose our existing 2.0 bugs 
than introduce new bugs from mod_ssl.

> I'd also like to point out that no one has said that the module 
> didn't work as expected.  I tested it before I submitted it with
> my +1.  If it doesn't work, it'd be fixed.

If it's stable and works, but clearly isn't a 'known quantity' in production
servers, it must land in modules/experimental until it's interaction with the
many clients is well understood.  Compiling isn't the issue, usability is
(just like mod_auth_digest back in the 1.3 tree.)

View raw message