[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Despite yours and Peters pushing and stressing and
> > overbearing "sell job" to get mod_gz(ip)
> > type functionality into the core, it was just
> > preaching to the choir. (well, okay: maybe Ryan
> > didn't want to see it in there :-) That sell job mostly
> > served to create an air of hostility.
>
> Yea... okay... whatever... we are the 'bad guys' again for
> trying to improve your Server. Mea Culpa.
And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
> > So the inclusion of either is blocked on seeing the
> > source to mod_gzip for Apache 2.0.
>
> Not really...
>
> The vote about mod_gz was still in progress.
The issues need not be serialised, and in fact probably should
not be.
> Sorry... I must have missed that part of the Apache
> developer's guide. That is most certainly NOT how I
> thought you worked.
And yet Peter just wrote that RC *does* understand how the
AG works. I suspect it would be more accurate to say that
RC *thinks* it knows -- or else we would not have so many
disconnects like this.
> > If we include mod_gzip *today*, then it will get
> > fixed along with everything else as we change the
> > APIs. You aren't going to be responsible for keeping
> > it up to date with the changes. We are. That is part
> > of what going into the core means -- that we have an
> > obligation and responsibility to maintain it. And we
> > will. If it goes in.
>
> Okay... now you are blowing my mind.
>
> Whenever we have tried to submit ANYTHING to you guys
> before all we got was the direct opposite. If someone
> submitted a module in the next hour that was the greatest
> thing since sliced bread but said 'I expect you to take this
> as-is and not bother me anymore' you would normally just
> say 'yea... right... get outta town'.
I cannot be sure, but I think Greg was unclear. Historically,
modules have been added to the core either because they were
simple and any of us could maintain them sans perspiration,
or else the primary author committed to stay with us on this
list and work issues, at least until other people were up to
speed with it. mod_rewrite and mod_dav followed this latter
path, for instance.
So I think when Greg says 'us' he was assuming ongoing participation
from *you* on this list, and maintenance of the module.
But I could be wrong.
> You seem to be missing something here, Greg. If WE submit
> anything to Apache and it is accepted then WE certainly
> plan on helping to maintain it.
That meets the criteria above. :-)
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
