httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Technical reasons for -1 votes (?)
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:25:09 GMT
On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:42 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/29/2012 8:59 AM, André Malo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 04:11:35 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> 
>>> I withdraw this vote, reverting my position to -1, until collaboration and
>>> respect for options and insights of fellow committers as well as project
>>> decisions and votes can be consistently demonstrated.
>> 
>> I always thought, you'd have to provide technical reasons for -1 votes (?).
> 
> Let's take Roy's position on the attached vote discussion, it's relevant.
> These new modules are certainly additions/deletions to httpd.

Yes, but they are modules.  Hence, their mere existence in our tree
is not a technical reason to exclude them.  We have a modular architecture
so that people who don't want a module don't have to build it.  In fact,
it was exactly this type of argument in 1995 that caused rst to focus
on creating a modular architecture.

If there were dependencies or license conditions brought in that somehow
harmed the server without the module being active, then that would be a
technical objection.

Traditionally, we have allowed any module that has at least one willing
volunteer committer to maintain it.  And I agree with Jim, none of the
subprojects have been as successful as just placing the code in the
main tree.

I have no idea why mod_fcgi is in a subproject.  mod_ftp is there
because it isn't an HTTP server.  mod_aspdotnet had all sorts of
licensing issues that I never quite figured out.

I see no reason not to commit mod_firehose, though I haven't had a
chance to look at the code myself.  Nor am I willing to respect a
veto war based on the impact of past vetos.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have at least two other walls to bang
my head on today ...

....Roy


Mime
View raw message