httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <>
Subject Re: Post 2.4.25
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:29:11 GMT
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2016, at 6:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <> wrote:
>> Because fixing r->uri is such a priority, trust that I'll be voting every 2.6
candidate a -1 until it exists. I don't know why the original httpd founders are so hung up
on version number conservation, they are cheap, but we are breaking a key field of a core
request structure and no other OSS project would be stupid enough to call that n.m+1.
> Who is digging in their heels and blocking new development
> now?
> So you are admitting that you will "veto" (although you
> can't veto a release) any 2.5.* "releases" unless and
> until r->uri is "fixed".

Wow, Jim, how did you misread my assertion that I'd oppose 2.6 GA
or 3.0 GA release until feature "X", where "X" represents the heavy-lift
of not using filesystem syntax as the uri path except for files, honoring
the URI and HTTP RFC, and therefore requiring some module authors to
re-think how they consumed or changed/assigned r->uri. Modules such
as proxy would actually pass on the *presented* uri (if valid) to the back
end http server - just imagine that. That change I'm expecting we all
want to call out as 3.0 for our developers, even though there are no
directives changed for our users so administration doesn't change.

How did you jump to the conclusion that I'd block an -alpha or -beta
release on the 2.5.x trunk? Usually takes some number of incremental
-alpha/-beta tags to get to GA.

And how did you translate 'vote -1' to veto?

View raw message