Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote: > >> I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major >> version. > > So do I. In fact I was just about to create a sandbox for that purpose > yesterday, but had to get the crypto stuff sorted out first. > > But do we really want to start by calling it 3.0? How about if we > work off of a few code names first? Say, for example, "amsterdam". > The reason is because there will be some overlap between ideas of > how to do certain things, with a variety of overlapping breakage > that can get pretty annoying if you "just want to get one part working > first". >
+1 to giving it a code name; '3.0' to me is just an easy way to explain 'this is a major departure from the current 2.x'. > I want people to be able to break things in one tree without blocking > others. And then, say once a month, we all agree on what parts are > "finished" enough to merge into all sandbox trees. > > The reason I was about to start the sandbox thing is because I've > been thinking about moving away from the MPM design. To be precise, > I mean that we should get closer to the kernels on the more modern > platforms and find a way to stay in kernel-land until a valid > request is received (with load restrictions tested and ipfw applied > automatically), transform the request into a waka message, and then > dispatch that request to a process running under a userid that matches > a prefix on the URI. That's pretty far out, though, and I wouldn't > want it to stand in the way of any shorter term goals. > > In the mean time, I would like to start the sandbox and move the > goals and requirements discussion into subversion (where it can be > saved and comments don't get lost). +1 to moving goal and discussion to a SVN file and starting a sandbox (same level as tags/branches?) -Paul
