[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rodent of Unusual Size
Subject: Re: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap
On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
>
> Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 01-09-08 04:34:03 EDT, Justin wrote...
> On the zlib main site (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/):
>
> zlib is designed to be a free, general-purpose, legally unencumbered --
> that is, not covered by any patents -- lossless data-compression library
> for use on virtually any co
I'm comfortable with mod_gz going into experimental.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rodent of Unusual Size
Subject: Re: zlib inclusion and mod_gz(ip) recap
On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
>
> Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROT
On Saturday 08 September 2001 01:33, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:08:20PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I also do not believe that we should be making this decision right now.
> > I am 100% in agreement with Jim about this. We should table this whole
> > discussion until
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> There shouldn't be any emotions at this point. There is no contention
> between two modules. We are only talking about mod_gz, which Ian posted a
> while back.
>
If that's the the case, then cool. But I feel that mod_gz would not
have the "support" (or be this far along in
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:08:20PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I also do not believe that we should be making this decision right now. I am
> 100% in agreement with Jim about this. We should table this whole discussion
> until emotions have calmed, the patent issue has been finally resolved (Dirk
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:33:13PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
> Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> >
> > I don't see how that could possibly be the consensus, since I have -1 in
> > the STATUS file.
>
> By the way, consensus doe
In a message dated 01-09-08 01:29:57 EDT, Ian wrote...
> looking back at justin's original request.
> the code was posted ~1 month ago.
> he reviewed it, he thought it was OK.
> and asked..
> 'guys.. should we have this module included?'
>
> a simple enough question.
Yes, it was... ( a
looking back at justin's original request.
the code was posted ~1 month ago.
he reviewed it, he thought it was OK.
and asked..
'guys.. should we have this module included?'
a simple enough question.
it then degenerated into a flame war.
It is hard to read you long and flamebait ridden commen
> > Ken Coar wrote...
> > Current consensus appears to be to add it to modules/experimental.
>
> Ryan Bloom responded...
>
> I don't see how that could possibly be the consensus, since I have -1 in
> the STATUS file.
The 'consensus' that Ken thinks he sees just diminished.
I am (obviously)
On Friday 07 September 2001 18:28, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
>
> Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> > On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > Current consensus appears to be to add it to modules/experimental.
> >
> >
* On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> I don't see how that could possibly be the consensus, since I have -1 in
> the STATUS file.
By the way, consensus does not always mean unanimity. It also
means general or majority agreement..
--
#ken
* On 2001-09-07 at 21:21,
Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > Current consensus appears to be to add it to modules/experimental.
>
> I don't see how that could possibly be the consensus, since I have -1 i
On Friday 07 September 2001 17:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:27:05PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Ben Hyde wrote:
> > > To repeat all these inform the debate, they are a list
> > > of things to think about, but we don't have and don't
> > > want some objective scoring schem
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:27:05PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ben Hyde wrote:
> >
> > To repeat all these inform the debate, they are a list
> > of things to think about, but we don't have and don't
> > want some objective scoring scheme for these; the
> > public debate process while tedious i
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 08:54:58AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > mod_gz is just a little bugger off to the side that the core people don't
> > have to truly worry about.
> ...
> > It can go in now and be fixed over time.
> ...
> > modules which have
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
Why do you quote Ken's mails as coming from a Mr. Selmko? Who is
he anyway?
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
more than a billion impressions
Ben Hyde wrote:
>
> To repeat all these inform the debate, they are a list
> of things to think about, but we don't have and don't
> want some objective scoring scheme for these; the
> public debate process while tedious is good - particularly
> when we all remain gentlemenly.
>
Here here. My i
Gentlemen from Maryland wrote:
> ... adding a new module
> ... the following aspects:
In the final analysis the decision is made using the
PMC's procedures, i.e. public debate and rarely
semi-procedural voting.
These aspects inform that debate, along with others
and few of them manage to be
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> mod_gz is just a little bugger off to the side that the core people don't
> have to truly worry about.
...
> It can go in now and be fixed over time.
...
> modules which have *nothing* to do with stability.
so you're saying mod_gz would go into modules/ex
Can we get back to basics here?
First of all, we're talking about adding a new module to the standard
Apache build, something which is *not* to be taken lightly. So what
characterizes a candidate module? IMO it's the following aspects:
1. Popular and well used already:
So many people are
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:05:50AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > > > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > > > started this whole entire thread.
> > >
> > > Ask
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
> build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
> looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
> modules exist in the first place.
>
Hello all...
Due to comments made in a private email to
myself and my company from one of your top level
board members this is to inform everyone that we
can stop this nonsense right now because there
will BE no submission of mod_gzip for Apache 2.0
to this group.
It shall remain a ( fully sup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mr... I don't owe you or anyone else any fucking explanations
> for why I choose to contribute to a public domain software project.
True enough; thanks for answering the question. I was actually
asking abour RC, but forget it.
> Get off your pulpit.
How about a sw
In a message dated 01-09-05 17:29:58 EDT, you write:
> True enough for everyone. (Except any who might be here as
> a job assignment.) The question I asked was, 'Why do you
> want to be here?' An answer of 'none of your business' is
> perfectly acceptable (though probably not constructive),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
>
> > And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
> > problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
> > it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
>
> See previous mes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's the way it's always been.
> Your users are used to it.
What do you mean "your" users? *I* am a user, and complex configuration
pisses *me* off.
I am also a webmaster, and have had to put up with the Apache + mm +
mod_ssl + auth_ldap + mod_perl nonsense for ages
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
> And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
> problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
> it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
See previous message reagrding 'didactic self-righteous a
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:28:29 EDT, you write:
> That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
> build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
> looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
> modules exist in the f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Despite yours and Peters pushing and stressing and
> > overbearing "sell job" to get mod_gz(ip)
> > type functionality into the core, it was just
> > preaching to the choir. (well, okay: maybe Ryan
> > didn't want to see it in there :-) That sell job mostly
> > ser
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:27, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
> > (either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
> > if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
> (either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
> if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of a new
> module, that's fine.
That's wonderful news for users. No l
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> v2.0 represents the latest bleeding egde server development. Until a
> v2.1 development tree exists then there is no choice but to commit
> things to v2.0.
for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
(either on apache.org or so
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:09, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
> > server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
> > bug fixes, performance, "doing things right", etc., but t
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
> server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
> bug fixes, performance, "doing things right", etc., but there is no good
> reason to add new modules or big features at this
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > > started this whole entire thread.
> >
> > Ask him what he thinks now :-) Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
> > a
> > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > started this whole entire thread.
>
> Ask him what he thinks now :-) Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
> adding it at this point.
Nope. My opinion hasn't cha
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:56:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote...
>...
> > As stated elsewhere, pcre and expat are in there because they aren't
> > typically available, like zlib is.
>
> Ah... so that's the criteria? Ok.
Generally, yes. But size matters :-) OpenSSL 0.9.
Greg Stein wrote...
> > Kevin Kiley asked...
> >
> > What's it going to take to find out once and for all if
> > ZLIB can be included in the Apache source tree?
>
> It won't go in. No need for it. That hasn't been well-stated...
It has now, it seems ( finally! ).
Only takes one veto an
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> Will the Apache group accept the ZLIB source code
> into the distribution tree at this time?...
>
> [__] Yes
> [__] No
No. The zlib library is popular enough (read: typically installed) that we
will link against it, rather
42 matches
Mail list logo