I think Apache's core has become stable and very solid
(just like TCP/IP stack). It has a very good modules
architecture. Most of the new features are added as module.
There are no need to add more features to the httpd core.
Apache is not MS and does not need to add more features
to the core
At 01:45 PM 11/14/2003, Sander Striker wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:06, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
consider taking action on:
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:06, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be useful regardless
* Ace Suares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
Jeez you must be real busy !
Exactly. Believe it or not.
nd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Ace Suares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
Jeez you must be real busy !
Exactly. Believe it or not.
I believe it. Just saw the [STATUS] messages.
But one simple question,
* Ace Suares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But one simple question, 'is this the right list for mod_auth_ldap, and do
you know who is 'responsible' for it, don't get answered, however, there
is time to answer about a broken threading and even time to answer that
you're real busy... way to go.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Sure it is the right list.
Thx!
Unfortunately I can't help you in this case,
because my ldap knowledge is about zero.
My C skills are zero. I see just the two of us won't get anywhere ;-)
However, one tip: Don't give up.
Repeat your
Ace Suares wrote:
Brent Putnam has told me that mod_auth_ldap in 2.0 differs from 1.3 (the
external rudedog module) and that his patch won't work, and that he has no
time on his hands at the moment. Okay, that means that as only option I can
just post a bug report, and I will... In the hope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Graham,
The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn.
grin...
If you expect people to be at
your beck and call, to apply the patches immediately as they're
submitted, then you're going to have to pay us :)
I don't expect that! But hey, if you
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be useful regardless of
C-T-R vs. R-T-C. And whether or not you agree with
Hi,
I would like to speak a little about all this slow answer or review
problems.
i will take example of my last patch about ldap-cache.
I started doing it 5 month ago, and posted few patch many times on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody answered on the list, i posted about 4 or 5 times the same
Matthieu Estrade wrote:
Then, Jeff Trawick get it and it become faster, lots of mail and
communication, and finally, the patch was commited last week.
Yep... finding a champion of your code/patch/fix in the
development team tends to result in quicker results. And
no, it shouldn't have to
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
One question: Have we set the barrier too high? This was discussed at
length last year when the 2_0_BRANCH was created and I think that it is
worth reviewing. My personal feeling is that the barrier may be doing
more to discourage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
IMO, the faster we get patches in front of the masses, the faster bugs
are fixed and stabilization is acheived.
+1
Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
Jeez you must be real busy !
No offense,
ace
The worst part is that it's now easy to sneak in code which
otherwise
would never be accepted (and backport it to 2.0). I don't have any
examples, but I think the danger is there.
There is a barrier to getting things backported to 2.0 as a protection
against
possible drawbacks of C-T-R.
If
15 matches
Mail list logo
