On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 03:00, Sami Tikka wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About re-opening 1.3 tree: I'm not sure I understand what is the big
> deal. This is open source. You want to work on 1.3, go do it. Your
> patches are not getting into ASF repository? Create your own. There are
> other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I popped off and looked at 2.0 code again just now and I can tell
you right now it's (still) the filtering that's killing it.
I am a novice (written 2 modules for apache 1.3 and 1 for 2.0) but I
have examined the apache 2.0 code quite a lot during the last year and I
bel
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
I am just lurking here really... but a while back I did try to post some
patches dealing with QNX support to both Apache and PHP. In my humble
opinion, there was a world of difference in attitude that I have encountered
in those two projects.
The attitude of PHP folks was 'yo
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 01:12, Glenn wrote:
> Ok, so Apache2 uptake is slower than desired for some (not all) on this
> list. That's only logical given the success and therefore inertia to stay
> with Apache 1.3. But there are more than a few other factors mentioned in
> recent threads that are con
On November 17, 2003 02:22 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> application environments. Being able to eliminate 1 machine in 3 due to
> scalability improvements in 2.0 probably won't be a sufficient return
> on investment for most folks. A really kick-ass load balancing/active
> fail-over feature in mod_pr
+1
My only concern is that some scarce resource might be further
dissipated by having multiple forks in progress. I had some sympathy
when 2.0 was trying to get started that 1.3 was a competitor for
attention; I don't think that's a problem any more. How audacious to
be on 1.3? Time will te
At 07:32 PM 11/16/2003, Martin Kraemer wrote:
>...only that tomorrow's apr might not be 100% compatible with today's.
>Think of mod_ssl's and mod_dav's problem (the apache_1.3 version). They
>must always add the apache_1.3 version number to their own version number
>to describe the API they requir
ure.
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Glenn wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> &g
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Look at the impact of not having 2.0 modules severely
limited the acceptance of 2.0. Not having 1.4 modules
will most certainly do the same*. If 1.4 == 1.3,
binary-wise, then it's a non-issue; if not, it's
a *major* issue.
* Yes, part of the delay was due to porting, which
m
On Nov 17, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively
that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in
the world.
-Rasmus
Well, I can certainly say that with respect to many, many of
the clients I've worked
* Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively
> that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in
> the world.
*shrug*
Big or not, if it's the only one, it can develop the stuff it needs itself. I
perso
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be
> > generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in
> > IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediat
On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be
generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in
IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that
investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows
specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would
probably see rapid u
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
> > > support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
> > > compata
On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it
available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has I
Glenn wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
> > support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
> > compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
> support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
> compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would
> probably see r
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support)
> with all the Windows
> specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with
> Apache 1.3 modules would
> probably see rapid uptake. I can
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at
ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available
> for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at
ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/
they
w: RE: consider reopening 1.3
>People will move Apache 1.x to this platform because there is virtually NO
>migration cost (i.e. recoding modules etc) and they get a performance boost
>and while replacing an aging infrastructure.
>12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a
>People will move Apache 1.x to this platform because there is virtually NO
>migration cost (i.e. recoding modules etc) and they get a performance boost
>and while replacing an aging infrastructure.
>12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a cheap AMD Opteron
>and optimize and imp
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Too bad all these supposedly-disenfranchised people aren't around to
review 1.3
> > fixes. 1.3 would be healthier if they were.
>
> And it is the reason for why they are not around that is in question here.
> Why wouldn't there be plenty of hackers ar
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Bill,
I've done some thinking about this - price/performance is only "part" of the
equation.
Someone needs to take a step back and see where Apache wants to *be* in tw
64-bit 12 million potential customers
2.x Work in progressnot sure how many customers?
I know where I would go.
Regards,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: consider reopen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Geez... it's nice to discover everybody hasn't just dropped dead!
>
> I see a lot of healthy 'things to do' coming out of this
> thread that could inject a lot of life back into the
> development... which is what the various threads the past
> few days have all bee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
FACT?: Apache 2.0 pre-fork ( which is the only thing still available on
some of the best platforms ) is SLOWER than Apache 1.3 pre-fork.
--
This gives someone who might be stuck with one of those pre-fork
only platforms, or anyone who just WANTS to stick with pr
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > So a useful topic is: What is *missing* in 1.3 that needs to be
> > addressed.
> > What are the features/additions that the disenfranchised 1.3 developers
> > want to add to 1.3...
>
> How about support fo
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:00:09AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Colm...
>
> Slainte!...
> Cead mile failte romhat!
> Go raibh maith agat!
Agus tú féin a cháirde, chaitfidh mé rá b'éidir gurb seo on
t-aon deis a bhéis gam cumarsáid le Gaeilgeoir so comh-théacs
seo, ach mar a deartaí áfac
Hi Colm...
Slainte!...
Cead mile failte romhat!
Go raibh maith agat!
Wow... I believe everything you are saying... and
please don't take this the wrong way... but I'm not
sure a test that only runs for 1.1 second and 1000
requests with 100 clients being launched ( on the
same machine? ) is a goo
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 05:02:12PM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> And a threaded mpm is just not an option. Most humans
> are simply not smart enough to write threadsafe code.
this is an interesting point.
I believe the moving towards threading is wrong.
I also find apache2 strongly suspective f
> You are right, apache 2.0 pre fork is < apache 1.3 prefork...
Maybe. Maybe not. My 'FACT?:' header had a QUESTION MARK there.
Just in the last 4 or 5 messages on this thread the actual
reality has become even more obfuscated.
Rasmus seems to be saying it's a pig... but maybe he's
simply unc
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:40:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Got any real numbers?
Completely unconfigured, out of the box configs;
Apache 1.3.29;
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 2.54841 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests:0
Write errors:
You are right, apache 2.0 pre fork is < apache 1.3 prefork...
But one nice feature of apache 2.0 is to provide other mpm more powerfull.
worker mpm is > apache 1.3.
If you look all benchmark of web server, you will see that all are now
providing threaded architectures because it's more stable and
Fantastic!
So Rasmus has just uncovered some 'other' problem then
which means (only) mod_perl is a pig on 2.0 or something?
I guess that's better than the core being the problem.
I'd like to see this get put to bed once and for all and eliminate
it from the 2.0 migration discussion(s).
Got any
Last benchmarks I have currently are quite old.
I think the last time I ( just a USER of Apache ) did
any serious benchmarking was 2.0.40 or something...
but the results were right inline with what Rasmus
just posted.
Apache 2.0 pre-fork was a pig compared to Apache 1.3 prefork.
If I get some
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:05:33AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> FACT?: Apache 2.0 pre-fork ( which is the only thing still available on
> some of the best platforms ) is SLOWER than Apache 1.3 pre-fork.
Not for me it's not. Especially with sendfile.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> FACT?: Apache 2.0 pre-fork ( which is the only thing still available on
> some of the best platforms ) is SLOWER than Apache 1.3 pre-fork.
> --
Do you have a supporting benchmark available? Benchmarking a PHP script as
Rasmus did does not express anything
bravo!
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
>
> Geez... it's nice to discover everybody hasn'
Geez... it's nice to discover everybody hasn't just dropped dead!
I see a lot of healthy 'things to do' coming out of this
thread that could inject a lot of life back into the
development... which is what the various threads the past
few days have all been about.
Action items?...
Facts to face?
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:43:03PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Yup, this is what I tend to see ...
>
> One question, what does 'ps auxwl' show, primarily the WCHAN column?
I don't have access to the machine right now, but I can check later.
-aaron
Yup, this is what I tend to see ...
One question, what does 'ps auxwl' show, primarily the WCHAN column?
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:34:47PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > --On Sunday, November 16, 2003 5:20 PM -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
> > >
> > >
Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Right now, most people do something like rpm -Uvh apache-1.3.29rpm
>>and things work. If APR were distributed with apache-1.3.30, then I
>>could say "requires apache-1.3.30" and it would not be much of a stretch
>>to have them install it.
>>
>huh???
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:34:47PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, November 16, 2003 5:20 PM -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
> >
> >'k, maybe expand the comment in the INSTALL file to address this?
>
> Well, we've asked for confirmation of FreeBSD threading 'working' on the
> [EMAIL PROT
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>3. Threading issues. This is a red herring; threading issues can be a
>reason why moving to 2.0 wouldn't give someone enough of a reason to make
>it worthwhile, but they do not block anyone moving to 2.0. if they
>don't want to use threads, they don't hav
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
In today's environment it's all about 2 words - price/performance. Show me
that Apache 2.x can outperform 1.x by a factor 10 on the same box.
Dig around... I posted a benchmark to this list early in 2.0 development showing a 10x improvement of threaded
2.0 over 1.3 on A
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I belive 2.0 beats 1.3 on these metrics, but like everyone here, Ihave
> no more energy proving/disproving which is faster.. 2.0 works for me,
> and thats all I really care about, not who else is using it.
Do you really believe this to be true for Apache
CTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
> Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> >
> > >> What would 1.4 have or be for that to happen?
> >
> > You have 12 million users - shouldn't be hard to simply ask them what
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
>
> >> What would 1.4 have or be for that to happen?
>
> You have 12 million users - shouldn't be hard to simply ask them what they
> would like to see.
>
Postal fees will be hell...
--
===
Jim
And I'd also be seriously thinking about 64-bit and getting Apache around
the 4GB memory limitation.
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 1:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
On
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I have always had the feeling that Apache2+prefork was a bit of a
second-class citizen. I have tested it periodically over the past 2 years
and it has never gotten anywhere close to Apache1 in performance. I ran
another test of 1.3.29 vs 2.0.48-prefork just now just to m
Glenn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:35:20AM +1100, Ian Holsman wrote:
Glenn wrote:
I have some different ideas. One is to distribute APR with 1.3 so
that modules developers could incrementally move their modules to APR.
why can't you just link APR into your 1.3 module? I don't think there
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Marc Slemko wrote:
> 3. Threading issues. This is a red herring; threading issues can be a
> reason why moving to 2.0 wouldn't give someone enough of a reason to make
> it worthwhile, but they do not block anyone moving to 2.0. if they
> don't want to use threads, they don't
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:35:20AM +1100, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> >I have some different ideas. One is to distribute APR with 1.3 so
> >that modules developers could incrementally move their modules to APR.
>
> why can't you just link APR into your 1.3 module? I don't think there
> w
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:54:59PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm also curious about what a 1.4/1.5 would do that the current 1.3
> does not which would provide a "seamless" upgrade. Are you talking
> API or what? As someone who's preformed numerous such migrations,
> the actual mechanics of doi
Glenn wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:37:19PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh, how about my (effectively) 2-line patch which adds vhost
to the error log, which I have posted to this list NO LESS THAN 6 TIMES
and spaced out over the past 6 MONTHS in three different formats, using
a global, expand
--On Sunday, November 16, 2003 5:20 PM -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On FreeBSD 4.X it is broken(and will be forever?). On FreeBSD 5.X, use KSE
threading (which may become the default in the future 5.2 release anyways?)
and it works great. man libmap.conf on a FreeBSD box f
--On Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:04 PM -0500 Glenn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:46:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why 1.4? What will 1.4 have that 1.3 does not? Or do you mean
reopening 1.3 implies that it becomes 1.4?
Only semantics. .4 is even, so stable; .5 is devel
> Ok, so Apache2 uptake is slower than desired for some (not all) on this
> list. That's only logical given the success and therefore inertia to stay
> with Apache 1.3. But there are more than a few other factors mentioned in
> recent threads that are contributing to Apache2 development stagnatio
CTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
> Hi,
>
> I understand many people still are with 1.3 and don't want to change
because
> it's stable.
> But Coding modules with 1.3 is definitively not easy and require many time
>
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 11:11, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > - patch management
> > many patches posted to this list or the bug db languish in limbo.
> > Very little happens until a core contributor decides to take over a patch
> > (more often than not it is more than simply shepherding it)
> > Li
What exactly do people want in a 1.4 and why is making that fit into 2.0
not an option?
So far I can recall seeing a few reasons why people aren't moving to 2.0.
1. they have no need to change, so they don't. Why would having a
1.4 then 2.0 will make them have a need to make two changes? If peo
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So a useful topic is: What is *missing* in 1.3 that needs to be
> addressed.
> What are the features/additions that the disenfranchised 1.3 developers
> want to add to 1.3...
How about support for chunked compressed responses right in
src/main/buff.c w
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:21:04 -0500
Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:12:20PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you... or do you mean just have
Apache 1.3 "APR aware" and not for 1.3 to *use* it per se,
but allow for modules to call APR... That would be
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Paul Querna wrote:
> > just to pop my 2 cents worth in here ... I have some clients that
> > have deployed under Apache2 ... the major headache(s) that I've had
> > to date is that the FreeBSD thread support is still listed as unusable:
> >
> > * If you are build
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:12:20PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2003, at 3:57 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> >Oh, how about my (effectively) 2-line patch which adds vhost
> >to the error log, which I have posted to this list NO LESS THAN 6 TIMES
> >and spaced out over the past 6 MONTHS in three
Glenn wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:46:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Why 1.4? What will 1.4 have that 1.3 does not? Or do you mean
> > reopening 1.3 implies that it becomes 1.4?
>
> Only semantics. .4 is even, so stable; .5 is development and less stable
>
Personally, I've never
> just to pop my 2 cents worth in here ... I have some clients that
> have deployed under Apache2 ... the major headache(s) that I've had
> to date is that the FreeBSD thread support is still listed as unusable:
>
> * If you are building on FreeBSD, be aware that threads will
>
On Nov 16, 2003, at 3:57 PM, Glenn wrote:
Oh, how about my (effectively) 2-line patch which adds vhost
to the error log, which I have posted to this list NO LESS THAN 6 TIMES
and spaced out over the past 6 MONTHS in three different formats, using
a global, expanding server_rec, and with #defines.
O
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:46:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Why 1.4? What will 1.4 have that 1.3 does not? Or do you mean
> reopening 1.3 implies that it becomes 1.4?
Only semantics. .4 is even, so stable; .5 is development and less stable
>+1 for "officially" allowing active developmen
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:37:19PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As noted many times, 1.3 is actively maintained but not
> actively developed. To be honest, I've not seen that
> many people saying "I *really* want to add this to 1.3!".
> If they had, chances are good that I'd +1 (not that what
> go
On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:12 AM, Glenn wrote:
*** We need to get back many of the disenfranchised Apache 1.3
developers
Killing Apache 1.3 is not a good option. There is a strong "business"
need in many places to stay with Apache 1.3.
The better option is reopening the 1.3 tree.
Release 1.4 and ope
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm curious how a 1.4 or whatever would make it "easier" for people to
> make that transition. What would 1.4 have or be for that to happen?
I was kind of wondering this one too ... I thought the biggest headache of
moving from 1 -> 2 was that the API
On Nov 16, 2003, at 2:23 PM, Glenn wrote:
I don't expect any of the current Apache developers would be
interested in
this. But plenty of people join the development community over time
(see
previous comments) and theoretically the opinions could change.
Well, I am interested. And some others
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> You know Rasmus you just hit the nail on the head...
>
> >> It will be years before I can even consider Apache2,
> >> given the architecture and API differences between the two
>
> Everybody on this list should take a moment and re-read those two
On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:12 AM, Glenn wrote:
- lack of clear leadership and even basic direction
scratch-an-itch development is fine and good, but not in total chaos
Umm... this *is* the ASF. It's *developer* driven. The direction
is defined by the developers.
- cathedral development
it appears t
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:04:28PM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Basically I see us back in the NCSA days right now. The ASF has mostly
> abandoned Apache1 and we are in that transition phase where people are
> looking at each other waiting for someone to step up and continue
> development on
rom: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > *** We need to get back many of the disenfranchised Apache 1.3
developers
>
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> The point was not to blame anybody. Instead, I don't believe there are so many
> people as you imply. Many of the people who are no longer developing have
> moved on to other interests/work/etc. and have dropped out of httpd dev because
> of that.
>
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > I also work for a large company with plenty of talented developers and
> > thousands of production Apach
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Too bad all these supposedly-disenfranchised people aren't around to review 1.3
fixes. 1.3 would be healthier if they were.
And it is the reason for why they are not around that is in question here.
Why wouldn't there be plenty
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Graham Leggett wrote:
> I think the key thing is "bugfixes" compared to "features" and
> "architecture changes".
>
> I am +1 on seeing bugfixes go into v1.3 - people are using it, and if it
> can work better, so be it. But to actively encourage people to add
> features or a
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Too bad all these supposedly-disenfranchised people aren't around to review 1.3
> fixes. 1.3 would be healthier if they were.
And it is the reason for why they are not around that is in question here.
Why wouldn't there be plenty of hackers around for
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I also work for a large company with plenty of talented developers and
thousands of production Apache-1.3 servers along with hundreds of custom
Apache-1.3 modules. It will be years before I can even consider Apache2,
given the architecture and API differences between the two
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
*** We need to get back many of the disenfranchised Apache 1.3 developers
Who are these people?
/me raises a hand
Just compare the list of contributors today to 4 years ago if you want a
list.
diff knows no reasons.
Too bad all these supposedly-disenfranchised people are
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > *** We need to get back many of the disenfranchised Apache 1.3 developers
>
> Who are these people?
/me raises a hand
People have suggested that we have fewer developers today because Apache 2
is too complex. That the crappy economy has reduced the
Thanks for your response, Jeff.
You present some excellent points and defenses and present worthy opinions.
I agree that there are lots of thankless, non-sexy tasks that would
help, but the core developers need more manpower. I am hoping to
create new avenues for participation.
My goal is to get
I would not use this as an argument to re-open 1.3, but:
The LDAP authentication module has a number of issues which have been
languishing. I really cannot gripe as I haven't fixed any -- just found
some, but for some of us this module has become critical. Apache 2 has
incorporated LDAP authe
Glenn wrote:
- lack of clear leadership and even basic direction
At present I see most of the time volunteered by developers to be spent
communicating with users on the bug db and trying to fix bugs. That sounds all
well and good to me.
If somebody wants something big implemented that they can
Good Point I have noticed that there is still a large number of people that
use 1.3 and are upset cause they don't like whats going on with 2. I like
you idea we need to make it easyer for people to add to apache I find it
hard to even get people to do or help with little things. We have to many
in
91 matches
Mail list logo
