> I think that R-T-C is the most likely way we'll get good reviews of
> code moved to the stable tree.
Jeff is speaking from his experience with 2.0 development and I would have to
agree with him in this regard. However, I think it is possible to maintain CTR
and ask committers to be more conserva
> On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>
> > > > +* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
> > > > + in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
> > > > + home (such as modul
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> > Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
> > that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
> > no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting
> > rules are sufficient enough to protect again
> At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
> >>
> >> +* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
> >
> >Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
> >that
Here's an outline of my latest thinking on how to build a
multiple-connections-per-thread MPM for Apache 2.2. I'm
eager to hear feedback from others who have been researching
this topic.
Thanks,
Brian
Overview
The design described here is a hybrid sync/async architecture:
* Do the slo
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:19:35PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
What will R-T-C give us that we don't already have right now?
code quality...
really, this isn't meant as flame. There's enough room for code quality
increase, a
At 05:32 PM 11/23/2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
>>a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
>>the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
>>fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly
Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:08 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ,
> >> Cliff and Aaron all seem to wan
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:19:35PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> What will R-T-C give us that we don't already have right now?
code quality...
really, this isn't meant as flame. There's enough room for code quality
increase, and with C-T-R you will not get it.
the analogy for our stable maintain
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Why the heck was that done? Too many things get sc
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:35 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
Also, we need to get commit messages to show which branch
the commit went against.
It does... by default (no branch) the commit is against cvs HEAD
(the development branch.) The commit message alerts you when
the commit
At 04:14 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
>a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
>the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
>fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Sou
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:08 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ,
Cliff and Aaron all seem to want to err on the side of C-T-R.
So count this
R-T-C: Je
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Also, we need to get commit messages to show which b
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ,
> Cliff and Aaron all seem to want to err on the side of C-T-R.
>
> So count this
>
> R-T-C: Jeff, Will
> C-T-R: JimJ, Cliff, Aaron
>
> More voices a
At 02:44 PM 11/23/2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>
>> > > +* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
>> > > + in the development branch should be located under it's eventua
At 03:01 PM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
>> >>
>> >> +* This branch is operatin
At 02:43 PM 11/23/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>My own POV is that a R-T-C on 2.0 will almost ensure a very slow
>development environ on that effort. We haven't felt the need
>to do so with 1.3, so, unless the idea is that: (1) no one will
>be looking at 2.0 compared to 2.1 and therefore c-t-r is a n
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
> >>
> >> +* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
> >
> >Huh? No way. We're
Brian Pane wrote:
>
> I agree: we should keep the experimental modules.
>
+1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> Let's discuss this a little more, I'm curious what others think. Is
> there really a problem now with people committing things that shouldn't
> be committed? Take the 1.3 branch for example.
>
> Lets put this another way. Why would we want to stop anyone from
> volunteer
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > +* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
> > > + in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
> > > + home (such as modules/cache/.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
>
> +* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
> +
Is that really required? Certainly we haven't needed that (in 1.3 or
2.0) for *quite* a long time. Or is it because it's expected that
no one will be looking at the
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
> that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
> no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting
> rules are sufficient enough to protect against bogus comm
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:51 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're
I stole that from httpd/STATUS (removing it and adding it to docs/STATUS.)
If it's already out of date, please knock it out of docs/STATUS :-)
Bill
At 01:38 PM 11/23/2002, you wrote:
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> +- mod_file_cache: missing documentation
>
>huh? What are you missing ther
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +- mod_file_cache: missing documentation
huh? What are you missing there?
nd
--
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich in Unicode kein
"i" mit einem Herzchen als Tüpfelchen? Das wär sooo süüss!
-- Björn Höhrmann in darw
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
>>
>> +* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
>
>Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
>that you are uncomfor
At 01:31 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>Didn't we rename this repository from httpd-2.0 to httpd? I see a symlink
>on icarus from httpd-2.0 --> httpd so both work the same, so we might
>want to start encouraging use of the new "real" repo name.
Agreed... I'll go back over it all.
First question is viewcvs; Greg, is it possible for viewcvs to have an
implicit -r APACHE_2_0_BRANCH with a uri such as;
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/STATUS
and an alias to httpd-2.1 on HEAD?
Second question is snapshots... who's our snapshot guru? Can we
start culling true 2.0 sna
Didn't we rename this repository from httpd-2.0 to httpd? I see a
symlink
on icarus from httpd-2.0 --> httpd so both work the same, so we might
want to start encouraging use of the new "real" repo name.
-aaron
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe 2
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> My train-of-thought is that if that the user's 2.0.43 conf still works,
> we succeeded :-)
+1
Joshua.
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
no reaso
At 12:23 PM 11/23/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>>
>> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
>> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
>
>Fine, but can we PLEASE thi
At 08:11 AM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>That sounds a lot like "decide which stuff now tagged
>APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" :) (or at least
>"deferred until after 2.0.44").
>
>looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
>. auth changes: IIRC, smart people
On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Fine, but can we PLEASE think about the names a little more. As I've
said, so
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
> >>
> >> Modified:include ap_release.h
> >> Log:
> >> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 developme
Martin Kutschker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:58:04 -0600
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Randall Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Patch for listen.c
>
> > b) TCP and SCTP are both congestion controlled protocols so
> > there should be no threat to the stability o
38 matches
Mail list logo
