On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:33:43AM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-10 at 11:17,
> Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> >
> > I have removed my veto. Although, I would point out that illegitimate veto
> > or not, nobody in this group has ever gotten away with going through a veto.
> > The only reason I have removed my veto is that it really looks like everybody
> > was about to ignore it anyway.
>
> I doubt it mightily. I think people are/were trying to show you that
> *they* support it. People are permitted to have opinions, you know.
> And even though I personally thought your veto was bogus, it was
> still a veto and I would not have countenanced it being overridden.
>
> > This whole thing just leaves me with a bad
> > taste in my mouth. All I keep thinking, is that we are trying
> > to spite RC by adding a different GZ module.
>
> That may be the case for others, but not for me. I feel strongly
> that this functionality belongs in our distribution. Until
> last week's unpleasantness convinced me of certain things, I
> would not have cared which implementation was accepted (modulo
> the various concerns already voiced by myself and others).
I agree with Ken on all points (veto, spite, rationale for addition).
mod_gz implements a part of RFC 2616, and a piece which can be very helpful
for servers on the side of a slow connection (eg. my upstream is just 128k)
and for users on their side, too (and don't say modems will do the
compression; there are more factors than that last leg, and we've already
discussed the ssl-then-no-compress vs compress-then-ssl thing)
We're a reference for HTTP serving. I'd like to see S3.5 implemented :-)
(I'm also psyched to try out decompression in Python's httplib module; if
zlib is present, then httplib could transparently decompress for the user)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
