On Saturday 05 June 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
CTR is fine for all normal fixes. RTC is always preferred for
major code refactorings.
I ask you this: What constitutes a modest new feature? It's not
a fix. It's not a major code
On Jun 3, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 03 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility
should not be a problem. Any idea about other popular modules?
WSGI? mod_perl? Are
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:58 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 04.06.2010 01:51, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jun 2010, at 10:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It would be, but it's necessary. The ASF is a collaborative environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are
On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:55 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
If there is not positive feedback from two reviewers, this code
does not
belong in trunk/. As a committer, you are *free* to create your own
sandboxes in svn to demonstrate code changes, if that helps
attract the
necessary review.
On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
+1 for the continued, and perhaps more widespread, voluntary
soliciting of approval in advance for changes which add new modules
or other significant new function, or make other widespread changes,
or change prerequisites in a meaningful way,
On 2010-06-03 at 22:28, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Not because of binary compatibility, but because users have certain
expectations when they move from x.y.15 to x.y.16 that nothing much
has changed, it's just lots of fixes. And if your backport ideas
include a lot of
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
+1 for the continued, and perhaps more widespread, voluntary soliciting of
approval in advance for changes which add new modules or other significant
new function, or make
On 6/4/2010 9:35 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This has been done countless times by numerous people in this
successful decade, in spite of, and even for the continued viability
of, the C-T-R policy.
This creates an artificial two tier
On 04 Jun 2010, at 6:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
All individuals are invited to chime in when a proposal is raised,
and to
invest the time in reviewing the proposal. That includes non
committers.
There are no tiers, except for contributor, committer, and project
committee
member.
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
CTR is fine for all normal fixes. RTC is always preferred for major code
refactorings.
I ask you this: What constitutes a modest new feature? It's not a fix. It's
not a major code refactoring. But modest new features have been strongly
On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
and
On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility should not be a
problem. Any idea about other popular modules? WSGI? mod_perl? Are they
ready for HEAD?
That's a good question, but until we get a version of httpd
On 3 Jun 2010, at 15:59, Sander Temme wrote:
Are we ready to freeze the API? I think that's our Alpha - Beta transition
point.
How about a chart or something documenting API differences since 2.2?
That would seem a useful input to answering your question.
If noone has such a beast
On 6/3/2010 9:59 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility should not be a
problem. Any idea about other popular modules? WSGI? mod_perl? Are they
ready for HEAD?
That's a good question, but
On Jun 3, 2010, at 8:45 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2010 9:59 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility should not be
a problem. Any idea about other popular modules? WSGI? mod_perl?
On Thursday 03 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility
should not be a problem. Any idea about other popular modules?
WSGI? mod_perl? Are they ready for HEAD?
That's a good question,
On 6/3/2010 11:58 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I definitely want to have the per-module/per-dir loglevel config in
2.4. I think it's working well enough to be commited to trunk. We can
work out the remaining issues there. Unless somebody disagrees, I am
going to commit.
I'm still
On Thursday 03 June 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2010 11:58 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I definitely want to have the per-module/per-dir loglevel config
in 2.4. I think it's working well enough to be commited to
trunk. We can work out the remaining issues there. Unless
somebody
On 6/3/2010 12:59 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 03 June 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2010 11:58 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I definitely want to have the per-module/per-dir loglevel config
in 2.4. I think it's working well enough to be commited to
trunk. We can work out the
On 03 Jun 2010, at 10:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It would be, but it's necessary. The ASF is a collaborative
environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are
committers.
A major patch like this hitting svn, without previous review, makes
our
fellow
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 03 Jun 2010, at 10:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It would be, but it's necessary. The ASF is a collaborative environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are committers.
A major patch
On 6/3/2010 6:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jun 2010, at 10:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It would be, but it's necessary. The ASF is a collaborative environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are
committers.
A major patch like this hitting svn,
On 6/3/2010 10:13 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On 3 Jun 2010, at 15:59, Sander Temme wrote:
Are we ready to freeze the API? I think that's our Alpha - Beta transition
point.
How about a chart or something documenting API differences since 2.2?
That would seem a useful input to answering your
On 6/1/2010 11:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
and socache were backported. I also like the refactoring of
the
On 04.06.2010 01:51, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jun 2010, at 10:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It would be, but it's necessary. The ASF is a collaborative environment;
unreviewed code should not released, even when the authors are
committers.
A major patch like this hitting svn,
On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if
I got it... (no idea why my orig reply didn't make it thru)... I did
a chunk of the 2.2 releases so I have the procedure down.
On Jun 2, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Noone seems to have stepped up for this, so I'll voulenteer. Is there a
RELEASE file somewhere with the exact
On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
and socache were backported. I also like the refactoring of
On 3 June 2010 10:40, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
and socache were backported. I also like the refactoring of
the providers for proxy in trunk as compared to 2.2, but
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like
to propose that we be more aggressive is backporting some
items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem
and socache were backported. I also like the
31 matches
Mail list logo
