Le 02/07/2018 à 17:36, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Stefan Eissing
<stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de <mailto:stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>> wrote:
I thought experimental == CTR, but if this is separate then I‘ll go
through the votes. Just let me know what you prefer.
I basically thought the same thing, but it is clearly spelled out in STATUS.
We aught to adjust this to reflect the eventual consensus;
* Current exceptions for RTC for this branch:
. mod_proxy_http2
. mod_lua
. documentation
. non-Unix build
. non-Unix, single-platform code
I don't have a strong opinion about it, that's why I proposed to update
STATUS to add an exception for mod_md? (or maybe even for any module
marked as experimental?)
A grep in 2.4.x, shows the following modules marked as Experimental:
mod_allowmethods.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_dialup.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_echo.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_example_hooks.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_file_cache.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_heartbeat.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_heartmonitor.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_lbmethod_heartbeat.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_log_debug.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_lua.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_privileges.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_sed.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
mod_session_crypto.xml:<status>Experimental</status>
I suspect, that some should not be marked as Experimental anymore.
mod_md and mod_proxy_http2 don't have an Experimental status, only a
red-lined warning at the beginning of its doc.
Maybe something should be added in the module list to easily spot the
one with an Experimental status and a note explaining what this mean.
(i.e., if I'm correct, the code is considered as stable, but its
implementation and/or API and/or directives are subject to change in
future release)
CJ
