Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:33:43 -0400
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Message-ID: <20010910113343.A31191@Ceres.Raleigh.IBM.Com>
References: <200109071232.IAA24926@devsys.jaguNET.com>
 <006f01c13828$fe58e310$24162e9c@roweclan.net>
 <20010910035953.C19934@lyra.org> <20010910134602.34E7646DF4@koj.rkbloom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010910134602.34E7646DF4@koj.rkbloom.net>;
 from rbb@covalent.net on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 06:46:01AM -0700

* On 2001-09-10 at 11:17,
  Ryan Bloom <rbb@covalent.net> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> 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.

I doubt it mightily.  I think people are/were trying to show you that
*they* support it.  People are permitted to have opinions, you know.
And even though I personally thought your veto was bogus, it was
still a veto and I would not have countenanced it being overridden.

> 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.

That may be the case for others, but not for me.  I feel strongly
that this functionality belongs in our distribution.  Until
last week's unpleasantness convinced me of certain things, I
would not have cared which implementation was accepted (modulo
the various concerns already voiced by myself and others).
-- 
#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!"