Re: Ancient Contributors page
Greetings Roy, and thank you for your enduring contribution, On 6/12/2026 3:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Jun 10, 2026, at 1:11 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: Since the late 1900s, we have had this page -https://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ - that listed contributors to the project. It was brought to my attention today that most of the links on that page were dead and/or pointed to sites no longer actually owned by the person referenced. It also contained dozens of email addresses for people who are now assuredly in every spam database ever. I’ve done some cleanup. If you are an httpd committer, you can edit (or add, or remove) your record on that page. It’s an interesting historical artifact, but it’s far from complete, and many of the remaining entries list long-past employers. Not harmful, per se, but also not terribly valuable for anything other than being a historical artifact. What do folks think about keeping this, going forward? I think we do a poor job of documenting contributions. This page was an exercise in self-documentation, which failed miserably. Using a link to the github commits would be even worse (#commits != #contributions, especially in a code base that predates cvs). I consider it ideal to document contributions, not just contributors. So I think linking to commits is helpful. Obviously, such a link should not *replace* current contents though. The ABOUT_APACHE file was the original project compromise on attribution, but that became a historical artifact as soon as I wrote it. I see several topics in ABOUT_APACHE: 1. the (target) product (just a short description) 2. the project 3. contributors (credits) 1. the PMC 4. history The intent was to update it over time to reflect the current group of maintainers above the history portion. Instead, the historical artifact remained fixed and the newer (at the time) bits relegated to this old CGI-generated page. Ah. But even in 2000, the list was introduced with: By the end of February, eight core contributors formed the foundation of the original Apache Group: …which sounds like it was meant to stay at that? Or do I misunderstand the part you are referring to? https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/9409605c72f883672f3e22c3dfd63167a5ffe716#diff-a1269d16460663446d15369cd3760c83880fbc8ccec434d56d334a7f9f36e617R30-R35 From what I can see: 1. is treated in the homepage, README, ABOUT_APACHE and ABOUT_APACHE.html 2. is treated in ABOUT_APACHE, ABOUT_APACHE.html and other pages 3. are treated/given in ABOUT_APACHE, ABOUT_APACHE.html and contributors/ 1. is only treated in ABOUT_APACHE 4. is treated in ABOUT_APACHE (badly outdated), ABOUT_APACHE.html (accurate but now highly incomplete). I would prefer to document the major contributors in a CREDITS file in source, remove the database, and link to the ABOUT_APACHE history on the website. I do not know which database you are referring to, but I would agree that shipping all of the above in some ABOUT_APACHE file seems like a historical artifact of pre-WWW times. The little content which is not already duplicated (perhaps just #3.1) would―indeed, if that is what you are suggesting―better be treated somewhere more focused. The PMC varies and would better be treated on the website. As for contributors, there are pros and cons to each, but distributing a list sounds good legally. You would indeed expect that in an AUTHORS, CREDITS or copyright file. But I don't know if it's possible to do that without offending someone. I don't understand what your concern is (what could offend and why). […] Roy -- 🅭🄍:https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list Philippe Cloutier OpenPGP_0x8A37FF445EA6611D.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: httpd.apache.org: Dealing with historical/outdated pages (was: Re: Ancient Contributors page)
> On Jun 16, 2026, at 2:35 PM, Philippe Cloutier wrote: >> > I may misunderstand what you are proposing, but I am skeptical about your > proposal. To make an analogy with Wikipedia, it has countless outdated pages, > and countless current pages, but pages in the first group have nothing > logical in common, besides getting insufficient love. The English Wikipedia > only (tries to) group outdated pages in a category to track pages which need > work: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_obsolete_information > > I fail to see how httpd webpages could be split. What I agree would be a good > idea would be to add warnings on outdated content. Wikipedia templates allow > doing it at the article section level, as in the following case: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization#Environment > Template:Update also allows specifying a date, quantifying how bad the > problem is. Yes, you appear to be misunderstanding, and the wikipedia analogy is not apropos. Historical content is not outdated, it’s a historical record. > > Or are you saying there is content which you consider "historical", in the > sense that it *should not* be updated? Perhaps examples of what you suggest > qualifying as historical would clarify. We’re discussing one. The list of contributors to the project is not *outdated*. It’s a historical record. It is still true and relevant, in that it gives credit to those who came before us.
httpd.apache.org: Dealing with historical/outdated pages (was: Re: Ancient Contributors page)
On 6/12/2026 3:34 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: On Jun 12, 2026, at 3:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I also haven't edited the website since it was moved to XML automation; apparently that was just enough of a barrier to prevent any further contributions (odd given that most of my IETF work was also in XML). I suffer from inscrutablescriptaphopia. ….Roy FWIW, the website is markdown now. It’s just the manual that’s weird bespoke XML. I keep looking for ways to improve the “historical artifact” nature of so much of our website, and I feel like I’m always riding the fence between losing history and making it look like this is a modern project that’s still relevant. Possibly intentionally splitting the site in “historical” and “current” sections would be an approach that could work. I may misunderstand what you are proposing, but I am skeptical about your proposal. To make an analogy with Wikipedia, it has countless outdated pages, and countless current pages, but pages in the first group have nothing logical in common, besides getting insufficient love. The English Wikipedia only (tries to) group outdated pages in a category to track pages which need work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_obsolete_information I fail to see how httpd webpages could be split. What I agree would be a good idea would be to add warnings on outdated content. Wikipedia templates allow doing it at the article section level, as in the following case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization#Environment Template:Update also allows specifying a date, quantifying how bad the problem is. Or are you saying there is content which you consider "historical", in the sense that it *should not* be updated? Perhaps examples of what you suggest qualifying as historical would clarify. -- 🅭🄍: https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list Philippe Cloutier OpenPGP_0x8A37FF445EA6611D.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Ancient Contributors page
On Jun 12, 2026, at 3:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > I also haven't edited the website since it was moved to XML automation; > apparently that was just enough of a barrier to prevent any further > contributions (odd given > that most of my IETF work was also in XML). I suffer from > inscrutablescriptaphopia. > > ….Roy > FWIW, the website is markdown now. It’s just the manual that’s weird bespoke XML. I keep looking for ways to improve the “historical artifact” nature of so much of our website, and I feel like I’m always riding the fence between losing history and making it look like this is a modern project that’s still relevant. Possibly intentionally splitting the site in “historical” and “current” sections would be an approach that could work.
Re: Ancient Contributors page
On Jun 10, 2026, at 1:11 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > Since the late 1900s, we have had this page - > https://httpd.apache.org/contributors/ - that listed contributors to the > project. It was brought to my attention today that most of the links on that > page were dead and/or pointed to sites no longer actually owned by the person > referenced. It also contained dozens of email addresses for people who are > now assuredly in every spam database ever. > > I’ve done some cleanup. > > If you are an httpd committer, you can edit (or add, or remove) your record > on that page. > > It’s an interesting historical artifact, but it’s far from complete, and many > of the remaining entries list long-past employers. Not harmful, per se, but > also not terribly valuable for anything other than being a historical > artifact. > > What do folks think about keeping this, going forward? > I think we do a poor job of documenting contributions. This page was an exercise in self-documentation, which failed miserably. Using a link to the github commits would be even worse (#commits != #contributions, especially in a code base that predates cvs). The ABOUT_APACHE file was the original project compromise on attribution, but that became a historical artifact as soon as I wrote it. The intent was to update it over time to reflect the current group of maintainers above the history portion. Instead, the historical artifact remained fixed and the newer (at the time) bits relegated to this old CGI-generated page. I would prefer to document the major contributors in a CREDITS file in source, remove the database, and link to the ABOUT_APACHE history on the website. But I don't know if it's possible to do that without offending someone. I also haven't edited the website since it was moved to XML automation; apparently that was just enough of a barrier to prevent any further contributions (odd given that most of my IETF work was also in XML). I suffer from inscrutablescriptaphopia. Roy
Re: Ancient Contributors page
This should remain. Anyone who has contributed should be attributed On Fri, 12 Jun 2026, 10:12 Joe Orton, wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 04:11:44PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > > What do folks think about keeping this, going forward? > > Drop it, link to e.g. > https://github.com/apache/httpd/graphs/contributors?all=1 > >
Re: Ancient Contributors page
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 04:11:44PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > What do folks think about keeping this, going forward? Drop it, link to e.g. https://github.com/apache/httpd/graphs/contributors?all=1
