On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > "Don't kill module A, kill module B instead". I suggest we don't kill > anything which has evidence of being useful. > Agreed - I just felt a bit provoked by mod_rewrite always being the target (and hadn't seen justins patch to mod_cache yet).
> And if something is "broken", "wrong", "bad code", "incomplete", then > submit some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, > so that different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code. > Take perchild for instance - noone has worked on that since rbb left, but we still get people complaining because they expect it to work (regardless of the big flashing warning sign) > Deprecating code without supplying a suitable replacements in our new > code leaves users with just one choice which they will freely follow: > Use the old code. > Check back in the archives for the discussion of why to get rid of mod_imap and mod_asis (or at least leaving them off by default). Though in principle I agree that crippling the server in a delayed "spring cleaning" frenzy isn't a great idea at all - I just tried to come up with a couple of alternatives if there really has to be trimming. I'd just rather not lose mod_rewrite in the same way as the debugging log level of mod_ssl disappeared, vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
