httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:15:56 GMT
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
> If there is a hidden agenda there then you're better than I
> at spotting it.
> Now tell me where the hidden agenda is.

If there were one, I would not be able to tell you because a) it
would be hidden, and b) it would be *your* agenda, not mine.
As it is, I do not know if there is one or not.

> If it's not technical, then it's social (you just
> plain don't like us... Not a problem)

Not so.  Social and political issues can prevent technically
valid things from happening.  So it *could* be a problem,
and may be.  That you think it would not be a problem
does not help.

> From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent
> Technologies can cut a deal with Compaq for the new
> Compaq Apache server (wonder if it will ship with or
> without compression (details are tough to find on this
> whole deal).

This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been
given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a
'Compaq Apache server.'  I am on the ASF board and I
can tell you this has not come before us.

> But you know what, more power to Ryan and his crew for
> doing something like that.

What are you whinging about?  Nothing prevents RC from entering
into a deal with Compaq or anyone else to ship mod_gzip.
If you are upset about the use of the word 'Apache' in this
news-to-me deal, it is misplaced -- because no such name has
been approved by the ASF.

> Did I ever see a vote for something like that, no...

What are thinking would be voted on?  The name, or permission
for Covalent to make a deal with Compaq?  The former would be,
but has not come up; the latter is no-one's business but Compaq's
and Covalent's.

> This whole conversation is mute, include, exclude, revoke
> whatever, mod_gzip will always be available from Kevin and
> I and we will support it.
> If you don't include it, all it means is another click to
> our website.

Then what is your motivation for trying to get it into the
Apache distribution?  I am not being snide, I am asking
seriously.  I suspect it is to get the marketing bulge of
being able to say it is there, which is fine -- have I guessed
correctly?  AFAIC that is a perfectly valid reason, although
making it happen requires an informal social contract with the
AG -- which is where a lot of problems seem to lie.

> Later...

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed you.  Just
in case they were overlooked, here it is again:

> "Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
> >
> > After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
> Oh?  Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly
> soliciting an individual to do something that recent
> discussion has shown the group considers moot?
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

View raw message