You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apache-bugdb@apache.org by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> on 1997/11/12 17:20:00 UTC

Re: documentation/1393: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentat (fwd)

The following reply was made to PR documentation/1393; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
To: Apache bugs database <ap...@apache.org>
Cc:  Subject: Re: documentation/1393: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentat (fwd)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:14:33 -0700 (MST)

 I really hate people that think the world should bow to them.
 
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:12:40 +0000
 From: JDC <yo...@dnc.net>
 To: marc@hyperreal.org
 Cc: souther@skipnet.com, splice@splice.nexus.olemiss.edu
 Subject: Re: documentation/1393: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentat
 
 > Synopsis: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentation
 > 
 > State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
 > State-Changed-By: marc
 > State-Changed-When: Tue Nov 11 11:22:31 PST 1997
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > The documentation changes are underway and should be completed shortly. 
 > If you can not live without them, then please use a non-beta version of
 > the software or write them yourself.
 
   This rates as the best and most unprofessional response I have ever
 received from an author of a piece of software -- commercial or free.
 I guess "rude" PRs results in "rude" replies, eh? Congrats.
 
   The bottom line is, laziness is the only thing keeping you guys from
 finishing the job; finishing the job means, writing documentation for
 something before you release it: this includes betas.
 
   The one exception is your CHANGES file: it's EXCELLENT in regards to
 being up-to-date, and on-key.
 
   However, throwing in a directive which breaks all name-based
 VirtualHosts (the NameVirtualHost directive), and not even taking the
 simple time (10 minutes at MAX) to document the feature which can
 supposedly rectify the situation is pure suicide.
 
 > Swearing at us gets you nowhere.  Rude PRs are not appreciated.
 
   Actually, this is the fastest reply I have *EVER* received from ANY
 of the Apache team. So it has gotten me somewhere as far as I'm
 concerned.
 
   And that's okay: inability to document functions which break previously
 working ones isn't appreciated either.
 
 > If you are unhappy with Apache we would much rather prefer
 > that you use something you may be happer with than that
 > you repeatedly submit rude PRs.
 
   My submissions have obviously gotten you guys riled up enough to
 pay attention to the situation, and do something about it. That's all that
 my post was intended to do.
 
   Have a nice day.
 --
 | Jeremy Chadwick                                        yoshi@dnc.net      |
 | System/Network/Security Administrator                  yoshi@parodius.com |
 | http://yoshi.parodius.com/                        "OUCH! WHAT DO YOU DO?" |
 

Re: documentation/1393: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentat

Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <La...@unix-ag.org>.
Let me add some personal notes to your mail...

>   ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>   Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:12:40 +0000
>   From: JDC <yo...@dnc.net>
>   Subject: Re: documentation/1393: Laziness with NameVirtualHost documentat
[...]
>   
>     This rates as the best and most unprofessional response I have ever
>   received from an author of a piece of software -- commercial or free.
>   I guess "rude" PRs results in "rude" replies, eh? Congrats.
>   
>     The bottom line is, laziness is the only thing keeping you guys from
>   finishing the job; finishing the job means, writing documentation for
>   something before you release it: this includes betas.

If you don't like the way the Apache Group develops Apache you should
stop using it and start writing your own web server! If you don't like to
receive rude responses to your PRs you should stop submitting rude PRs!
   
>     The one exception is your CHANGES file: it's EXCELLENT in regards to
>   being up-to-date, and on-key.

So why do you complain? The CHANGES file noted the new NameVirtualHost
directive (and it was also added to the FAQ).
   
>     However, throwing in a directive which breaks all name-based
>   VirtualHosts (the NameVirtualHost directive), and not even taking the
>   simple time (10 minutes at MAX) to document the feature which can
>   supposedly rectify the situation is pure suicide.

The NameVirtualHost directive does not break things, but simplifies them.
The user only sees a new directive, but the vhost code was completely
rewritten. Documenting such changes takes much longer than 10 minutes
(I know this, because I wrote most parts of the new virtual host
documentation which is now available online).

>     My submissions have obviously gotten you guys riled up enough to
>   pay attention to the situation, and do something about it. That's all
>   that my post was intended to do.

You only showed with your submission that you are far away from understanding
the idea of *free* software like Apache...


-- 
Lars Eilebrecht                       - Internet is full, go away!
sfx@unix-ag.org