On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2016, at 6:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> 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?
