On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the heated exchange last week that was one of my specific
> questions ( major formatting concerns ) and the specific answer was
> that it didn't matter much at this point in time.
>
> If I had thought anyone still cared about where braces are I
> would have done that myself.
<shrug> It mattered to me. I scratched an itch. No big thing.
> > I also removed some more debug stuff (the r->notes things) since
> > none of it ever seemed to be really used.
>
> The ability to add compression statistics to the Apache logs
> via the r->notes interface was one of the things that people
> needed the MOST.
Okay, I didn't know that. It wasn't clear from the code that they were
used elsewhere. I'll put them back.
> > I removed the ZLIB license since I don't think any of this
> > code actually came from ZLIB.
>
> Cliff... now I really am confused.
> I really don't know what you are talking about.
>
> If a program USES ZLIB then it is SUPPOSED to have the
> ZLIB license. For people that get so bent out of shape about
> your own public license I would think you would have more
> respect for other's licenses.
Huh? The license doesn't say that... does it? I read it several times
and never got that impression. My interpretation was that if you
distribute ZLIB (or a variant) itself, you must leave the license on
_that_ code. So for example if we were distributing zutil.h, our version
of zutil.h must retain the ZLIB license. Code that links with it is in a
different category. I wasn't trying to disrespect the license, I just
really didn't think it was supposed to be there.
"If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product
documentation would be appreciated but is not required."
It's possible that I've misinterpreted that statement, of course...
> However... just look at the code in ZUTIL.H and you will see
> you are better off trusting that header. It's been tested for
> over 8 years and it does the RIGHT thing.
No doubt.
> Some of those comments were IMPORTANT because Apache 2.0 itself
> isn't even finished yet and there was good information about what to
> expect might need to happen when it is.
I didn't remove _all_ comments of course, not by a long shot. I just
removed things that seemed really obvious and that we typically don't
comment.
> Sure... Whatever. I still think it's important that the NAME show up
> in the 'Server:' response field.
I just ripped out that whole line. I'll put the name part back, that's
certainly reasonable.
> What was submitted was heavily tested and worked fine.
> If you broke it then I suggest putting it all back the way it was.
If someone determines that I broke it (I'll test it myself later, just
don't have time right now) and it's not obvious how to fix it, then feel
free to ignore my changes. I just did it to save someone else the work
because I think my changes make the code easier to grok for someone who's
never looked at it before. It certainly helped me. I threw what I'd done
out to the wolves prior to even bothering to test since like I said I
don't have any more time for this today and I wanted to save someone else
the work if they were thinking about doing anything similar. <shrug>
> If you had, then you would understand that's it's easier
> to just warn someone they have a mistake in their config
> then to stop the Server cold.
IMHO, version 2.0 already has big enough config changes that need to be
made that people shouldn't expect to just drop in a 1.3 config. If all we
have to say is "just delete this config line, it doesn't exist anymore,"
then I tend to think that's sufficient. If this were a minor revision,
clearly the story would be different since the principle of least
astonishment applies more strongly. But maybe that's just me.
> I submitted that code and I said you (Apache) can do whatever
> you like with it but I guess I didn't expect such an up-front
> butcher job before anyone even had a chance to talk about
> the code.
Like I said, I only did it because the end result was easier for me to
understand. Take it or leave it. Nobody ever said that the fact that a
derivative exists takes the original out of the running, for the obvious
reasons that the original is heavily tested and so on. If someone else
can even just use my version to read it through to more quickly understand
what's going on in the original version (but use the original version)
then I think it was worth it.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
