Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-05 Thread alex
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:59:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Can I ask a stupid question? What have we actually broken since Apache > > > 2.0 went GA? Binary compatibility? How many functions? How many of > > > those were APR and not Apache? > > > > Sure, both source and binary co

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Ian Holsman
Jeff Trawick wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. >>[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > same with me.

RE: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Sander Striker
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 September 2002 00:35 > Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain > backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Henning Brauer
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:24:38PM +0200, Mads Toftum wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth > > stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in > > and rel

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Jeff Trawick
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Mads Toftum
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth > stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in > and releasing 2.1 seems fair to me, opposed to destabilizing the whole 2.0 >

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Henning Brauer
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 12:57:05PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 04 September 2002 12:43 > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2

RE: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Sander Striker
> From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 September 2002 12:43 > On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Could you please motivate this? We are interested in seeing why it sho

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-04 Thread Henning Brauer
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Paul J. Reder
Please vote: [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Jim Jagielski wrote: > Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3 > community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think > spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more danger

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 04:36:58PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote: > Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retaining all the old APIs, shouldn't > it be possible to distribute the current modules as mod_auth_compat and > mod_auth_dbm_compat that users could activate to get all the old > directives? Eek.

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Joshua Slive
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain > backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives. > So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility. Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retainin

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. -- > Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain > backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authorita

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Please vote: > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain > backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives. > So,

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Brad Nicholes
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread rbb
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > > > > [X] Check in aaa

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread David Reid
> [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Why are we suddenly having so many damned votes...

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > > > > > > > My view is that it's importa

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Brian Pane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >>>[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. >>>[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. >>> >>> >>My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new >>users

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread rbb
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > > > > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Jim Jagielski
> > Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3 community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more dangerous and painful

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new > > users, and breaking things all the time w

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread gs-apache-dev
> Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Adoption of Apache 2 so far has been low enough that Apache 2 may still be considered to be in the "early adopter" phase. Breaking compatibility is to be avoided when possible, but is allowable when necessar

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread rbb
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > > My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new > users, and breaking things all the time won't help :) Can

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread David Shane Holden
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [x] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Shane

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Chris Taylor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new users, and breaking things all the time won't help :) Chris Taylor - The guy with the PS2 WebServer Email: [EMAIL

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Brian Pane
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >Please vote: > >[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. >[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. > >

Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread rbb
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Please vote: > > [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. > [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Ryan

[VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite

2002-09-03 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
Please vote: [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives. So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility. Everyone is enco