On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 10:33:11AM +0200, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote: >... > But splitting it up in many minor patches over time is even more > difficult. > Adding an extra layer is almost an atomic step. It is there or it is not > there. > You cannot do it halfway. Let's at least be clear on this one point. Independent of the whole state_rec thing, the current patch is NOT going into Apache. It is not reviewable in its current form. I suggested a couple simple things that would drop its size, hopefully into the "reviewable realm." I'm off to Seattle for a few days, I'll pick up the multiprotocol thread again at that point. Hopefully, there will be more conversation on the topic in the mean time. My basic feeling about the whole thing is that it is taking the wrong approach, so I'm not liking it at all. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage Bill Stoddard
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage Harrie Hazewinkel
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage Greg Stein
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol usage rbb
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi protocol u... Greg Stein
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi proto... Harrie Hazewinkel
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Bill Stoddard
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi proto... Harrie Hazewinkel
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Greg Stein
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Harrie Hazewinkel
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Greg Stein
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi proto... rbb
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Greg Stein
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... rbb
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... rbb
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Harrie Hazewinkel
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... Marc Slemko
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... rbb
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi proto... Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: Apache 2.0 for multi p... David Reid
