We (the ASF) have services running using mod_lua. If we trust it enough, others should as well.
Experimental and unstable will prevent many people from even trying it. How about Cutting Edge? On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: > On 02.08.2013 14:41, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> Hi dev@, >> Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this >> email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think >> objections, if there are any, will arise. >> >> Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to >> defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people asking if it's safe to >> use to people claiming that it should never be used in a production >> environment. Why? because of one word in particular: Experimental. >> >> In our documentation, we write the following: >> ---- >> mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable, >> usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases >> of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading. >> ---- >> >> To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of >> httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion >> - this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!". >> As a "long time" developer and user of httpd/mod_lua for both personal >> and professional sites/manoeuvres/jobs, I find it sad that I have to >> defend a module in otherwise perfect working condition with no >> discernible faults at all, simply because of a wording that scares off >> regular users of httpd. So I'd really like to change the wording into >> something less scary, so users can both know that it's still in a >> development phase, but it won't blow up your computer or spread germs if >> you use it on a production server. >> >> I'd like to change the note to something along these lines: >> ---- >> mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage >> and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable >> releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before >> upgrading >> ---- >> >> From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are >> reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a >> user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change. > > What about the U-word Unstable? Some might associate with unstable that > it is not robust, so again the potential for misinterpretation, but from > a technical point of view the term "unstable" correctly describes the > above potential for incompatible changes. > > Regards, > > Rainer >
