httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Nov 28 23:45:08 EST 2001
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2001 03:43:06 GMT

Hello William...
This is Kevin Kiley again...

See comments inline below...

In a message dated 11/28/2001 10:59:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
wrowe@rowe-clan.net writes:

> From: <TOKILEY@aol.com>
>  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:30 AM
>  
>  > In a message dated 11/28/2001 10:21:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>  > wrowe@covalent.net writes:
>  > 
>  > >  If you have any doubts about why sometimes submissions aren't 
> considered 
>  > >  for inclusion in any open source project ... well there you have it.
>  > 
>  > Ya know what...
>  > I am going to stand still for this little spanking session because
>  > I am willing to admit when I have made a mistake and unlike most 
>  > times before on this forum when you guys have tried to make a
>  > punching bag out of me... this time I give you permission to fire away.
>  
>  > Ok... now on to the next question ( already asked by someone else )
>  > 
>  > Whatever happened to the 'other candidate for submission' as
>  > described by Coar? I assume that was mod_gzip itself?
>  
>  As described by Ken?  Once again, what would he have to do with that?

Nothing, really, other than the fact that the only reason I asked
is that he is the one who updated the status file to read...

+1 Cliff ( there's now another candidate to be evaluated )

...and failed to actually mention what that 'other candidate' really was.

I believe I missed any messages from a 'Cliff' and so I was never
sure myself what that was all about since it wasn't clear in the STATUS.

I have never really been sure what happened to the complete 
working mod_gzip for Apache 2.0 that was (freely) submitted 
( after both public and private urgings by Apache developers )
If that's what Ken's note was really referring to then OK but I 
was personally never sure since it wasn't specific. I thought 
maybe this guy Cliff submitted something, too. 

I remember mod_gzip for Apache 2.0 was immediately hacked upon 
right after submission by some people ( Justin? Ian? Don't remember ) and
they started removing features without even fully reading the source code
and/or understanding what they were for ( and then put some of them back 
after 
I explained some things ) but all of that work just died out into silence and 
the STATUS file became the only remnant of the whole firestorm that Justin
started by asking for Ian's mod_gz to be dumped into the tree ASAP.

A LOT of folks on the mod_gzip forum caught the whole discussion
at Apache and started asking us 'Is that 'other candidate really
mod_gzip for 2.0 or is it 'something else' and our response was
always 'We do not know for sure... ask them'.

And (FYI) a few people came to Apache and DID ask 'What is
the staus of mod_gzip version 2.0?' and no one even ack'ed
their messages so we assumed it wasn't even being considered.
  
>  jwoolley    01/09/15 12:18:59
>  
>    Modified:    .        STATUS
>    Log:
>    A chilly day in Charlottesville...
>    
>    Revision  Changes    Path
>    1.294     +3 -2      httpd-2.0/STATUS
>  [snip]
>    @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@
>           and in-your-face.)  This proposed change would not depricate 
Alias.
>     
>         * add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 (in modules/experimental/)
>    -      +1: Greg, Justin, Cliff, ben, Ken, Jeff
>    +      +1: Greg, Justin, ben, Ken, Jeff
>    +       0: Cliff (there's now another candidate to be evaluated)
>            0: Jim (premature decision at present, IMO)
>           -0: Doug, Ryan
>           
>  Kevin... I believe I've generally treated you civilly... Read the end of my
>  previous response above.  A good number of non-combatants to these 'gzip 
> wars'
>  are really disgusted with the language and attitude on list.  Much of that
>  has turned on your comments and hostility.

If anyone really views a few 'heated exchanges' on a public forum over
some specific technology issues as a 'war' then I'm sorry but I still won't 
apologize for being passionate about something and willing to argue/defend it.

Email is a strange medium. Some people take it way too seriously, methinks.

>  In accepting a contribution, the submitter is generally expected to support
>  the submission, ongoing.  

Okay... mind blown... that is the exact OPPOSITE of the argument
that I beleive even YOU were making during the 'Please why won't
you submit mod_gzip for 2.0 before we go BETA' exchanges. One
of the arguments I made ( Capital I for emphasis ) was that if I
was going to 'support' it I wanted to see at least one good beta
of Apache 2.0 before the submission was made. Strings of arguments
came right back saying "That should NOT be your concern... if you
submit mod_gzip for Apache 2.0 then WE will support it, not YOU".

Seriously... check the threads if you have time... that fact that Apache
would NOT be relying on us to support it was one of the 'arm twisting'
arguments that was made to try and get us to submit the code BEFORE
Beta so that Ian's mod_gz wouldn't be the 'only choice'.

> Everyone here enjoys working on or with Apache, or
> they would find another server.  Even those paid to work on Apache enjoy it,
> or they aught to find more suitable employment.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. I know that you are one of those
that 'is paid to work on Apache' there at Covalent ( or from Nebraska
perhaps ) and you work with all those (many) other paid Apache 
developers at Covalent so I guess you can speak for them... but
I think you might be assuming a lot about what others 'think' and/or 'feel'.
 
I assure you... there are a lot of people that work with Apache simply
because it's a product that has a 60 percent market share and they
don't have the kind of 'feel goods' you are referring to one way or the 
other. 
Apache is just a reality for anyone in the COM business. It's not personal.

>  Nobody has the stomach to put up with the personal slams that regularly
>  emanate from your keyboard, even (perhaps especially) when directed at 
other,
>  productive members of this community.  As accepting your contribution would
>  indirectly subject all list subscribers to your 'support', such as it is, 
> there 
>  was not one vote for said 'alternative' in the STATUS file, 2 1/2 months 
> after Cliff made note of it.

So... are you saying that the fact that I was the one that wrote the
code and might actually 'show up' here from time to time to support it
was the overriding factor in Apache not accepting a fully functional
feature rich codebase into the 'experimental' directory of a yet to
be released experimental version of Apache 2.0?

That's about the funniest thing I have ever heard.

See above. That would be the exact opposite reason for anyone
at Apache deciding to do anything, according to what we were told
when you guys were practically begging us to submit mod_gzip 
for Apache 2.0.

Bottom line: We do not CARE if you include mod_gzip or not.
All we have ever CARED about is that you guys get off your asses
and provide SOME support for IETF Content-Encoding.

If the inclusion of some 'other' code is, as you seem to be trying to say,
some kind of 'Nothing so unites a people as a common enemy' decision
then so be it... at least it's a good start towards providing Apache users
with something they should have had years ago.

Whatever you use... it will evolve... but first it has to be in the
tree to be debugged and patch. You made it... it's there... 
onward and upward.

> Sad it came down to that ... is this damage reparable?  Not for mod_gzip, 
> IMHO, there is too much lingering hostility, ergo caution.  For you 
> personally, in relation to the project list?  Well, that entirely depend on 
future 
> messages emanating from your keyboard.

Sounds like some kind of threat.

Tell you what...

If you guys really don't want me here then go ahead and officially 
block me from this (public) forum. You may do so at any time you wish
( because you have the power to do so ) if my occasional emails are really 
causing that much consternation.

> Yours,
> Bill

PS: For anyone who cares... the original ( fully functional ) mod_gzip
for Apache 2.0 code that was submitted will be officially distributed
and supported from our own website at http://www.ehyperspace.com
and will be fully supported on the mod_gzip forum. We were just
waiting for you guys to make up your minds what you were going
to do. This is not personal. We 'stayed away' after the submission
and just let your process run its course. We did not try and influence
anyone either publicly or privately with regards to that 'process'.
Now that it has resulted in a decision, we know what to do. 
Thanks for finally making a decision.

PPS: We are not Indian givers... the code is yours... do whatever you
like with it... that's what 'open source' is really all about. If you decide
to dump mod_gzip into CVS tomorrow then more power to you. That
decision is still entirely, 100 percent, yours to make.


Mime
View raw message