Greg Stein wrote:
There shouldn't be any emotions at this point. There is no contention
between two modules. We are only talking about mod_gz, which Ian posted a
while back.
If that's the the case, then cool. But I feel that mod_gz would not
have the support (or be this far along in the
On Saturday 08 September 2001 01:33, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:08:20PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
I also do not believe that we should be making this decision right now.
I am 100% in agreement with Jim about this. We should table this whole
discussion until
, 2001 10:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rodent of Unusual Size
Subject: Re: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap
On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
* On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say:
On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46
Gentlemen from Maryland wrote:
... adding a new module
... the following aspects:
In the final analysis the decision is made using the
PMC's procedures, i.e. public debate and rarely
semi-procedural voting.
These aspects inform that debate, along with others
and few of them manage to be
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
Why do you quote Ken's mails as coming from a Mr. Selmko? Who is
he anyway?
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
more than a billion impressions
On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
* On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say:
On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46, Greg Stein wrote:
Current consensus appears to be to add it to modules/experimental.
I don't see
looking back at justin's original request.
the code was posted ~1 month ago.
he reviewed it, he thought it was OK.
and asked..
'guys.. should we have this module included?'
a simple enough question.
it then degenerated into a flame war.
It is hard to read you long and flamebait ridden
In a message dated 01-09-08 01:29:57 EDT, Ian wrote...
looking back at justin's original request.
the code was posted ~1 month ago.
he reviewed it, he thought it was OK.
and asked..
'guys.. should we have this module included?'
a simple enough question.
Yes, it was... ( a
Can we get back to basics here?
First of all, we're talking about adding a new module to the standard
Apache build, something which is *not* to be taken lightly. So what
characterizes a candidate module? IMO it's the following aspects:
1. Popular and well used already:
So many people are
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
mod_gz is just a little bugger off to the side that the core people don't
have to truly worry about.
...
It can go in now and be fixed over time.
...
modules which have *nothing* to do with stability.
so you're saying mod_gz would go into
Greg Stein wrote...
Kevin Kiley asked...
What's it going to take to find out once and for all if
ZLIB can be included in the Apache source tree?
It won't go in. No need for it. That hasn't been well-stated...
It has now, it seems ( finally! ).
Only takes one veto and looks
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:56:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Stein wrote...
...
As stated elsewhere, pcre and expat are in there because they aren't
typically available, like zlib is.
Ah... so that's the criteria? Ok.
Generally, yes. But size matters :-) OpenSSL 0.9.6 isn't
Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
started this whole entire thread.
Ask him what he thinks now :-) Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
adding it at this point.
Nope. My opinion hasn't changed. I
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
started this whole entire thread.
Ask him what he thinks now :-) Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
adding it at
Doug MacEachern wrote:
we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
bug fixes, performance, doing things right, etc., but there is no good
reason to add new modules or big features at this
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:09, Graham Leggett wrote:
Doug MacEachern wrote:
we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
bug fixes, performance, doing things right, etc., but there is
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
v2.0 represents the latest bleeding egde server development. Until a
v2.1 development tree exists then there is no choice but to commit
things to v2.0.
for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
(either on apache.org or
Doug MacEachern wrote:
for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
(either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of a new
module, that's fine.
That's wonderful news for users. No
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:27, Graham Leggett wrote:
Doug MacEachern wrote:
for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
(either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of a new
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:28:29 EDT, you write:
That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
modules exist in the
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
See previous message reagrding 'didactic self-righteous
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the way it's always been.
Your users are used to it.
What do you mean your users? *I* am a user, and complex configuration
pisses *me* off.
I am also a webmaster, and have had to put up with the Apache + mm +
mod_ssl + auth_ldap + mod_perl nonsense for ages. I
In a message dated 01-09-05 17:29:58 EDT, you write:
True enough for everyone. (Except any who might be here as
a job assignment.) The question I asked was, 'Why do you
want to be here?' An answer of 'none of your business' is
perfectly acceptable (though probably not constructive),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr... I don't owe you or anyone else any fucking explanations
for why I choose to contribute to a public domain software project.
True enough; thanks for answering the question. I was actually
asking abour RC, but forget it.
Get off your pulpit.
How about a swap?
Hello all...
Due to comments made in a private email to
myself and my company from one of your top level
board members this is to inform everyone that we
can stop this nonsense right now because there
will BE no submission of mod_gzip for Apache 2.0
to this group.
It shall remain a ( fully
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
modules exist in the first place.
We
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:05:50AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
started this whole entire thread.
Ask him what he
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Will the Apache group accept the ZLIB source code
into the distribution tree at this time?...
[__] Yes
[__] No
No. The zlib library is popular enough (read: typically installed) that we
will link against it, rather than
28 matches
Mail list logo
