Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:45:16 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Message-ID: <20010906144516.P2482@ebuilt.com>
References: <20010906150401.94347.qmail@icarus.apache.org>
 <20010906115350.B11415@Lithium.MeepZor.Com>
 <01d901c13703$3d008b80$13381b09@sashimi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <01d901c13703$3d008b80$13381b09@sashimi>;
 from bill@wstoddard.com on Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 02:39:18PM -0400

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