Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <000701c13a01$b5679f90$56011fac@pc0082>
From: "Gomez Henri" <new-httpd@slib.fr>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:05:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> Some people believe his veto is illegitimate -- that there is no
technical
>> reason for vetoing the inclusion into modules/experimental.

>Ryan wrote:
>I have removed my veto. Although, I would point out that illegitimate veto
>or not, nobody in this group has ever gotten away with going through a
veto.
>The only reason I have removed my veto is that it really looks like
everybody
>was about to ignore it anyway. This whole thing just leaves me with a bad
>taste in my mouth. All I keep thinking, is that we are trying to spite RC
by
>adding a different GZ module.

As a mod_gzip user, I was first happy to see it included in Apache 2.0
distro, but Ryan got very valid arguments, one being that the core should
be tiny, fast and bug free.

The argument for having modules included in release is that if
they are outside, they are invisible, but on the contrary having the
modules outside core, will help modules writers be more reactive.

A clean solution could be to add a page (on site and in distro)
listing all known external modules, functionnalities provided and
of course their home page.

Apache 1.3 used to have a contrib tar.gz, it may be also another
alternative.

 I'm strongly for small core and +1 with Ryan here.

Regards