httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxime Petazzoni <>
Subject Re: A mod_mbox release ?
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:38:16 GMT

* Sander Temme <> [2005-12-11 20:06:54]:

> Maxime, folks,
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
> > I'm not yet used to release management (even for a small module like
> > mod_mbox), so I'll be very pleased to get some feedback, comments and
> > pointers if we decide to make a 0.2 release for mod_mbox !
> Good idea: releasing the code in packaged form should encourage its use.
> The main aspect of Release Management is (all IMHO of course) making
> an informed judgement of whether the current code base is "good
> enough" to release. This includes data points like:
> * It's been running on with fewer than X
> cores (with X tending to 0)

I don't know if I'm able to check this point on my own : where do
coredumps go ? Do I have enough access rights to check for them ?

Anyway, since my last fixes against core dumps, you did not report any
of them.

> * It can be built against httpd release 2.{0,2}.y without
> modifications to either httpd, mod_mbox source code or build files

We got this point.

> * There is documentation that allows a user (as opposed to the
> person who wrote the code) to install it and get started serving
> mail archives

Documentation is currently inexistant, but if we choose to make a
mod_mbox release, I could do it in the next few hours. I still have my
.xml file from my last failed attempt on providing documentation (it
was rejected because mod_mbox was not part of the main distribution).

> * There are Z number of open bugs in Bugzilla against the module and
> T of those need to be fixed before we can release, while U of them
> can be waived

Altough ASF's Bugzilla does not have a 'mod_mbox' project and no bugs
are currently reported for mod_mbox to the Apache-2.x bugzilla
project, the STATUS file is kinda verbose on known bugs and

But the fact is that we came to a running mod_mbox (server side) and
browser incompatibilities are avoided by deactivating the dynamic
browser if the client is not compatible.

> S. (and why 0.2, why not 1.0? What are the criteria for 1.0?)

That's why I only want to call it 0.2 and not 1.0. Because a 0.3 will
come in the next months I hope to fix these problems and improve the
thing. I don't think we should call it 1.0 until we make the dynamic
browser work everywhere. Google makes it for every single
bleeding-edge web-based application they do, why not us ?

Thanks for the reply,
- Sam

Maxime Petazzoni (
 -- gone crazy, back soon. leave message.

View raw message