httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:49:56 GMT
On Thursday 06 September 2001 14:45, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 02:39:18PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > +1 on the veto :-)
> >
> > I am a strong +1 in favor of making this a subproject and probably
> > rolling it into a post 2.0 release. The presence of mod_gz in the core
> > now -will- impact folks who are working on stabilizing the server.
> For my own reference, I'd like to know exactly how adding mod_gz in
> the tree will impact the few folks "working" on stabilizing the
> server (other than as a distraction on this list - which this should
> have been a easy yes vote last weekend).  It's a module.  No one has
> to enable it if they don't want to.  It has zero impact on the rest
> of the server (due to our architecture).  It implements something
> outlined in RFC 2616 that almost all browsers support today.
> Adding mod_gz will cause "instability" seems to be a common
> thread among the vetoers here.  Please enlighten me as to how this
> is the case.  -- justin

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.

This is why I am against putting everything into the core.  The core should
be as small as possible, so that an individual module doesn't hold up

Ryan Bloom
Covalent Technologies

View raw message