Re: Apache 1.3 :: Not-a-bug: .asis handler

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>]

From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:03 PM


> This is looking more and more like config funkiness as opposed to a serious 
> code defect.  Unless I see something to change my mind, I am not inclined to 
> attempt to fix this in the 1.3 code base.

Whatever.  I advertised the fix, I couldn't care less if anyone backports it.

It's bitten several folks.  It's been written up on bugtraq as an outstanding
case.  There are a dozen variations of cause and effect.  But whatever, you are 
the RM, and nobody can veto a release.

The problem is that each of the modules, mime, negotation, and autoindex, as
well as the default handler have all contributed to this thorny problem.
Yes - you can call it config error.  But I'd argue that not being able to
see the whole picture doesn't make this a config error; our inability to
unlock the 'secrets' of our modules interaction means that the admin has no
hope of ever understanding this.

We advertised mod_negotation as a real module, not 'experimental'.  If our
own modules interact impolitely, we should re-relegate it to experimental.

BTW - I agree with keeping the 'found' match logic for matching AddHandler
extensions in 1.3 - to retain backwards brokenness and to meet the "prinicpal 
of least surprize" test.  That's not my opinion on 2.0, but that's another
thread.  So "index.html.asis" should continue to match "index.html" for 1.3.

Bill

Re: Apache 1.3 :: Not-a-bug: .asis handler

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>]

From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <je...@ebuilt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:04 PM


> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:07:46PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > It's bitten several folks.  It's been written up on bugtraq as an outstanding
> > case.  There are a dozen variations of cause and effect.  But whatever, you are 
> > the RM, and nobody can veto a release.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but why can't someone veto a release if they feel
> it is the wrong time to do so?  -- justin

http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html


[-1 Votes]
No. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a veto. 
An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 
3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An action item requiring majority 
approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes 
than -1 votes (i.e., a majority with a minimum quorum of three positive 
votes). All other action items are considered to have lazy approval until 
someone votes -1, after which point they are decided by either consensus 
or a majority vote, depending upon the type of action item. 

Release Testing
Majority approval is required before the tarball can be publically released. 

So releasing a version of Apache is by Majority, not by Consensus.

And it is designed that way --- no one individual can stand in the way of
moving forward with changes.  The only reason my changes thus far are in
the 1.3.21 plan is that they have been on the table for some time, and the 
RM concurred with including them (even by lazy concensus, nobody objected
when they were introduced into STATUS.)

Re: Apache 1.3 :: Not-a-bug: .asis handler

[Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
 > Pardon my ignorance, but why can't someone veto a release if they feel
 > it is the wrong time to do so?  -- justin

We have a mess of rules/traditions that act to prevent
obstructionism and push people toward constructive
argument and constructive actions.  Releasing is always
a matter of tearing the damn thing out of the hands of
the evil demon "one more really really important thing".

 - ben

Re: Apache 1.3 :: Not-a-bug: .asis handler

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:07:46PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> It's bitten several folks.  It's been written up on bugtraq as an outstanding
> case.  There are a dozen variations of cause and effect.  But whatever, you are 
> the RM, and nobody can veto a release.

Pardon my ignorance, but why can't someone veto a release if they feel
it is the wrong time to do so?  -- justin