> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> >> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> >> doesn't really help developers
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
>> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
>> doesn't really help developers.
>
>
> Coul
At 6:30 AM -0400 10/14/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
>> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
>> > that "only the
At 05:30 AM 10/14/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
>> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
>> > that "only the n
André Malo wrote:
>
> hmm. It can also deny/allow from all, env or subnet. So I guess,
> mod_access is not really a bad name for the module, for (not serious)
> example:
>
> BrowserMatch MSIE dont-like-your-browser
> Deny from env=dont-like-your-browser
if it had to be renamed, it might have be
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I believe mod_authz_host is a much better name for mod_access. It
> indicates that this module is only dealing with authorization based
> on the remote host components. mod_access can mean lots of things,
> but the fact that it was solely restricted to hostnames was
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
> the changes to the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
> > that "only the names have changed", this is called deprecating a module,
> >
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 October 2002 01:05
> At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The EN
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> > That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> > doesn't really help
At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>André Malo wrote:
>>I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
>>suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
>>them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
>>Joshua they got the
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> doesn't really help developers.
Could you please explain why breaking out the
André Malo wrote:
> I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
> suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
> them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
> Joshua they got the status "Obsolete" and also a large warning on
* rbb wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I did
>> try to wrap my brain around documenting both pre and post auth in the
>> same /docs-2.0/ tree. It didn't make any sense. Perhaps someone
>> else can do better.
>
> I will write the docs to handle both. I commit to hav
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
>>of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
>>and who kno
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT of this
> thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
> whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
> into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
>
>
At 05:35 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> So we have a radical change. I proposed we create 2.1 to incorporate auth.
>
>I've read them all. We discussed this before the patch was incorporated
>into the release. The majority do NOT beli
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:33 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In the message above, I don't
> >> >> think
--On Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:17 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That seems like a one-way street to me. How come it's ok to work on
> the auth changes in 2.0 but it's not ok for others?
As Sander pointed out, the aaa changes were made first, then we voted
on where they
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
> of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
> and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
At 03:33 PM 10/13/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In the message above, I don't
>> >> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:57 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I challenge you to do so; document both the old and the new so that
>
>http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
>
> clearly documents both the pre-new-auth and post-new-auth. I'm
> presuming it can't be
At 1:05 PM -0500 10/13/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers
>within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are
>both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now.
>
In a nutshell, h
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:30 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, Two Bills beg that we defer the auth reorg to 2.1. If I
> hear three, I will consider it appropriate to veto the auth
> reorganization for 2.0, until we start 2.1. The technical
> justifi
At 04:36 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>There were some directive changes, and certainly some different
>>modules to load, but nothing in the API department. Moreover, I
>>think we can deal with the dir
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except
> to expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
> unaffected.
Exactly - we only reorganized our aaa modules. No hooks o
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> In the message above, I don't
> >> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
> >> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before movin
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
> Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
>
> Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
> is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
> 2.
>
> For me, these are the 2 thir
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In the message above, I don't
>> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
>> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
>> interpreting it that way?
>>
>
>+++1
At 05:59 AM 10/13/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except to
>expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
>unaffected.
To the extent that they don't choose to use the new hooks, I believe
you are right. Certainly no MMN m
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> > I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
> > 2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
> > enough. All we know, is that we
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
> >until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
>
> Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
>until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream. Was it a good
choice to rename mod_access to mod_auth
I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
begin working on it. I will be finishing 2.0.
And yes, this is very harshly worded. We
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In the message above, I don't
> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
> interpreting it that way?
>
+++1
--
=
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > 2.1: async write support. And async
I finally figured out why a 2.1 branch bothers me so much. It isn't being
done the way it should be done. When apache-nspr was created, it wasn't
because there was a big discussion on-list and Dean decided to go do the
work. When apache-apr was created, it wasn't because Bill, Manoj, and I
sta
>Anyway, I've most likely upset a few people, and I apologize in
>advance. Just take these words from someone who *still* wants Apache
>to achieve world domination :)
As a user I'll try to help achiving this goal ;)
About the specific issue: I (again as a user) like the idea of at least
puttin
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for end users or developers ("API changes
with every release... yeah, s
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > >2.1: async write suppo
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> 2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> that may take a lot longer.
My belief
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:59 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm calling for a consensus opinion that the mod_auth changes
> are simply too radical to introduce into a current version. We keep
> treating the GA tree as a development branch. Many newcomers
>
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> >2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> >that may take a lot longer.
>
> My belief is that y
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> > tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> > the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they a
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:23:23PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > > >2.1: async write support. And
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
> the changes to the list, and invited peopl
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
> 2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
> enough. All we know, is that we broke binary compatibility. But, we
> don't know
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third party modules I use. Yes, the onus DOES
rest on the developers of these
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > >2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> > >that may take a lot longer.
> >
> > My bel
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Glenn wrote:
Glenn, thanks I had deleted Jim's message and I was re-creating it. You
made it so I didn't have to. :-)
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
> > more and
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
> more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
> developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
> seems very little regard
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
>...
> And now you want to create an Apache 2.1! Oy! Give the third party
> developers a LITTLE bit of time to catch up. :)
The presence of an httpd 2.1 would have *ZERO* effect on them supporting a
2.0 release. If anything, it would
At 04:05 PM 10/12/2002, Sander Striker wrote:
>> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
>
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
>> > >but I do have one change in min
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Let's get cracking and we can have a 2.1 release out by year end,
> depending on how far we go with changes in that version. Certainly
> some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
> as radically as GStein has
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
>until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
>
>But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
>begin working on it. I will be fini
55 matches
Mail list logo
