httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jorge Schrauwen" <jorge.schrau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [TALLY] Release mod_aspdotnet build 2004?
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:29:59 GMT
This slightly worries me...
Other modules in the early phase of incubation that looks promesing like
mod_ftp might end up having simular fates!

Is placing interesing modules like mod_aspdotnet, mod_ftp,... in a seperated
project a good idea?
Maybe they live longer if there where part of the httpd-truck?

Jorge

On 7/19/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Summary;
>
>    +1 binding:  wrowe
>
>    +1 nonbinding feedback (with qualitative data) from:
>
>     Jorge Schrauwen
>     James Park (pencil_ethics)
>     Trent Nelson
>
> As none of the other pmc members care to inspect the source tarball, the
> vote fails.  As Roy has raised concerns about httpd's ongoing ownership,
> even of the prior release, that too will be removed from the active
> www.apache.org/dist/httpd/mod_aspdotnet location.  archive.apache.org is
> a lovely permanent museum for that wrinkle in time (2.0.0.2000 21 Nov
> 2004).
> As 2.0.4 and the various snapshots between now and then are not releases,
> those have been removed from /dev/dist.  It will take me a few days to
> find
> the free cycles to expunge the trunk of httpd/docs/manual/, downloads.cgi,
> etc and then remove /dist/httpd/mod_aspdotnet.
>
> As there is no oversight going on here, no further commits will occur to
> bring mod_aspdotnet to Visual Studio 2005 here.
>
> What does the list want to do with the unreleased mod_arm4 and
> mod_aspdotnet
> code repositories?  Do we want to create a /repos/asf/httpd/attic/
> repository
> for abandoned/orphaned httpd code?  Or simply svn rm them, knowing they
> still
> persist at certain points in history and can be resurrected?
>
> To those disappointed, I share your disappointment, but have no
> regret.  This
> is what it is.  I have spent considerable time reviewing the history of
> posts
> to cli-dev, cli-users, and the bugtraq database.  No specific individuals
> stand out as frequent posters of bug fixes (not that many were needed),
> peer
> to peer user feedback authors etc.  Obviously one solution would be to
> draft the
> few that express an interest here and now, but the httpd project
> (appropriately)
> expects a reasonable track record to avoid exactly this sort of issue.
>
> Although this was a rather mature module from it's inception, with a very
> short
> list of issues that users wanted addressed, it certainly attracts many
> more
> users than developers.  The net code changes since it was granted two
> years ago
> are less than 250 LoC, and developing -within- the framework has much more
> interest than developing the -module-, itself.
>
> I'm afraid this is no different than the passing of JRun and other
> similar, now
> abandoned code.  Developers and their technologies move on.  It would be
> amusing
> if the project spent 5% of the effort that's invested in Apache 1.3 to
> review
> this release, but that wasn't to be.
>
> Sadly yours,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Build 2004 of mod_aspdotnet is prepared (after a number of abortive
> > attempts due to the whole 2.0/2.2 partitioning and renaming of
> apache.exe,
> > along with switching flavors of InstallShield to a version I have
> > installed)
> > and seeking voters.  The update is here;
> >
> >   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_aspdotnet/
> >
> > Please cast your +/- 1's to release mod_aspdotnet-2.x.0.2004-source.zip
> > (along with associated binaries ...2.0.0.2004.msi and ...2.2.0.2004.msi,
> > one corresponding to 2.0.44 and later, the other to 2.2.2 and later).
> >
> > This is the last expected release on the Visual Studio .NET (al la 2002)
> > compiler toolchain; the next effort is porting it to VS 2005 (al la, the
> > one available in a free flavor).  Porting breaks compatibility with the
> > older tools, since VS 2005's C++.NET schema is miles beyond 2002.  For
> > example, a reference becomes a reference, not an overloaded
> psuedo-pointer.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > .
> >
>
>
>


-- 
~Jorge

Mime
View raw message