|
Is this the end of mod_aspdotnet ? Or it is not anymore under the ASF flag
?
I know quite some (Win)Apacherians using
mod_aspdotnet. I am wondering if the Vote-system is working for this kind of
mods, special when it is related to Windows (we all know that most, pmc members?, here are dedicated to *nix
flavors). I have no insight in the ASF vote-system, not sure I could
vote.
I build and running now version 2004 without
issues.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006
16:29
Subject: Re: [TALLY] Release
mod_aspdotnet build 2004?
This slightly worries me...
Other modules in the early phase
of incubation that looks promesing like mod_ftp might end up having simular
fates!
Is placing interesing modules like mod_aspdotnet, mod_ftp,... in
a seperated project a good idea?
Maybe they live longer if there where
part of the httpd-truck?
Jorge
On 7/19/06, William A.
Rowe, Jr. <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Summary;
+1 binding: wrowe
+1 nonbinding feedback
(with qualitative data) from:
Jorge
Schrauwen
James Park
(pencil_ethics)
Trent Nelson
As none of
the other pmc members care to inspect the source tarball, the
vote
fails. As Roy has raised concerns about httpd's ongoing
ownership,
even of the prior release, that too will be removed from the
active
www.apache.org/dist/httpd/mod_aspdotnet
location.
archive.apache.org is
a lovely permanent museum for that wrinkle in
time (2.0.0.2000 21 Nov 2004).
As 2.0.4 and the various snapshots between
now and then are not releases,
those have been removed from
/dev/dist. It will take me a few days to find
the free cycles
to expunge the trunk of httpd/docs/manual/, downloads.cgi,
etc and then
remove /dist/httpd/mod_aspdotnet.
As there is no oversight going on
here, no further commits will occur to
bring mod_aspdotnet to Visual
Studio 2005 here.
What does the list want to do with the unreleased
mod_arm4 and mod_aspdotnet
code repositories? Do we want to
create a /repos/asf/httpd/attic/ repository
for abandoned/orphaned httpd
code? Or simply svn rm them, knowing they still
persist at
certain points in history and can be resurrected?
To those
disappointed, I share your disappointment, but have no
regret. This
is what it is. I have spent
considerable time reviewing the history of posts
to cli-dev, cli-users,
and the bugtraq database. No specific individuals
stand out as
frequent posters of bug fixes (not that many were needed), peer
to peer
user feedback authors etc. Obviously one solution would be to
draft the
few that express an interest here and now, but the httpd
project (appropriately)
expects a reasonable track record to avoid
exactly this sort of issue.
Although this was a rather mature module
from it's inception, with a very short
list of issues that users wanted
addressed, it certainly attracts many more
users than
developers. The net code changes since it was granted two years
ago
are less than 250 LoC, and developing -within- the framework has much
more
interest than developing the -module-, itself.
I'm afraid
this is no different than the passing of JRun and other similar,
now
abandoned code. Developers and their technologies move
on. It would be amusing
if the project spent 5% of the effort
that's invested in Apache 1.3 to review
this release, but that wasn't to
be.
Sadly yours,
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
> Build 2004 of mod_aspdotnet is prepared (after a number of
abortive
> attempts due to the whole 2.0/2.2 partitioning and
renaming of apache.exe,
> along with switching flavors of
InstallShield to a version I have
> installed)
> and seeking
voters. The update is here;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_aspdotnet/
>
>
Please cast your +/- 1's to release
mod_aspdotnet-2.x.0.2004-source.zip
> (along with associated binaries
...2.0.0.2004.msi and ...2.2.0.2004.msi,
> one corresponding to
2.0.44 and later, the other to 2.2.2 and later).
>
> This is the
last expected release on the Visual Studio .NET (al la 2002)
>
compiler toolchain; the next effort is porting it to VS 2005 (al la, the
> one available in a free flavor). Porting breaks
compatibility with the
> older tools, since VS 2005's C++.NET schema
is miles beyond 2002. For
> example, a reference becomes a
reference, not an overloaded psuedo-pointer.
>
>
Bill
>
> .
>
--
~Jorge
|
