On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> In the message above, I don't > >> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that > >> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in > >> interpreting it that way? > >> > > > >+++1 > > Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers > within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are > both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now. > > Therefore, you are stating that developers are not free to introduce radical > new code at the present moment, and only things that fit within Apache 2.0 > [subject to perpetual debate over what exactly what fits within 2.0] are open > for community development efforts.
Bill, I'm sorry, but you aren't reading the e-mails that have been sent. You want to branch 2.1 so that people can make radical changes. We are saying feel free to create patches with radical changes. Once people can see the patches, we can decide if they belong in 2.1, 2.0, or if we don't want them in Apache at all. If you want to create the patches in a community, then create a CVS repository in your home directory. Please don't call it httpd-2.1, because you don't get to decide that your efforts are 2.1, that is for the group to decide. We are stating quite clearly, that you are free to branch and show us what you want to do in 2.1. What we aren't willing to do, is create a 2.1 tree where everybody is supposed to do their work. There is a good chance that the first few attempts at a 2.1 tree will fail and won't ever see the light of day. Please finally go back and read the messages where people have explained why they don't want to branch. Also, as for the auth stuff, you seem to have completely ignored that Greg has offered a solution that might create backwards compat for the users with the new auth work. You are so focused on getting a 2.1 branch, that you are ignoring any other solutions to the problem that you have raised. Ryan > Please see my other post about offering a 2.1 working branch within the > httpd-2.0 tree, maintained only by the 2.1 contributors, and please offer > your opinions of that solution. > > This would apply to docs as well, since folks interested in documenting > the demise of mod_access and introduction of mod_authn/authz_foo > modules would be free to proceed, while not interfering with the primary > httpd-2.0 docs, and picking up revisions and changes by merging the > ongoing activity within the httpd-2.0 tree. > > Bill > -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
