I'm with FirstBill. We snap a tarball, and we release it. That is how we are
working now.
If you want proxy in there, then call it 2.0.19. After you get whatever work
needed.
Even better, the proxy guys should say "okay. we have verified that our
stuff works with the 2.0.18 tarball, so let's release an apache+proxy
tarball." How was FirstBill to know whether proxy should have been included
or not? Was it stable and did it work against 2.0.18? No... he doesn't know
that.
The low overhead approach is for the httpd developers (such as FirstBill) to
put together an httpd tarball whenever it feels "right". It doesn't get held
up, it doesn't get delayed... it just gets done.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 04:22:51PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
>
> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
> >
> >
> > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
> >
> > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
> >
>
> No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
>
> > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
> efforts
> > of our proxy hackers!
>
> Cough, cough, bullshit, cough :-) For several reasons. First, the
> showstoppers for going for the next beta candidate were discussed over this
> week and last and they have been resolved. We did not identify proxy as a
> showstopper. Second, I see talk on the APR dev list of some major function
> shuffeling about to happen. Since the tree is relatively stable now and we
> do not freeze development before tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time
> to try for a beta. I guarantee that the APR changes will break compiles on
> some OS for at least the next week if not longer. And we can get a lot of
> good beta feedback w/o proxy. Third, we have not decided the best way to
> distribute the proxy. It has been discussed at length but I don;t recall a
> final decision (I really have no opinions on whether the proxy is included
> in the httpd-2.0 tree or not). It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> time around. Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still
> showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the
> Akamai problems).
>
> This should -by far- be the best release of Apache 2.0 to date. If it is
> beta quality, it would be foolish not to release it to the world. My $.02
>
> Bill
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
