You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@hyperreal.org> on 1999/12/10 19:57:20 UTC
IPv6 (was RE: [STATUS] (apache-1.3) Wed Dec 8 23:45:17 EST 1999)
According to Rodent of Unusual Size:
> * Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino's [PATCH] IPv6 enable patch
> ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/apache-134-v6-19990118.diff.gz
> Message-ID: <18...@coconut.itojun.org>
> Status: Lars +1 (on concept), Dirkx +1 (tested),
> Martin +1 (on concept; the patch may need a little cleanup)
I'd like to see this patch in for 1.3.10, but I haven't yet found the
time to take a closer look at it.
If anyone is interested I can hook you up with a friend of mine
who is running an IPv6 box at "freebsd.ipv6.space.net" (Apache with the v6-diff
is already installed) and is offering free access for ASF members.
Anyone?
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - I may have my faults...
lars@hyperreal.org - but being wrong isn't one of them.
Re: IPv6
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> If we are talking about a minimum of another four months before we put in
> some of these much requested features, we aren't servicing our users very
> well. We have the patches, in some cases, we have had the patches for a
> few releases already. We need to include them if it is possible. Waiting
> for 2.0 doesn't make sense until we get closer to actually releasing 2.0.
Waiting for it for some things may not, but IPv6? It's not exactly
imminent, is it?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
Re: IPv6
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 03:35:29PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > If we are talking about a minimum of another four months before we put in
> > some of these much requested features, we aren't servicing our users very
> > well. We have the patches, in some cases, we have had the patches for a
> > few releases already. We need to include them if it is possible. Waiting
> > for 2.0 doesn't make sense until we get closer to actually releasing 2.0.
>
> Not only that, but just because 2.0 "is" released, it doesn't mean
> that people will immediately move over to it, esp for production,
> high-end servers.
If someone running a production server doesn't want to move to 2.0,
it's because 2.0 may not be stable enough or is too different. But
adding new features does the same thing to 1.3! The best way to
serve these production users is to commit to only providing bug fixes
for 1.3. If we want to provide new features, we have directories on
www.apache.org that are perfect for placing feature patches for users
to integrate themselves.
All time spent integrating features into 1.3, documenting them, fixing
bugs that they trigger, and dealing with the various resulting user
questions and bug reports is time that could be spent on getting 2.0
out the door faster.
I sure won't veto (or even complain all that much anymore) about
features added to 1.3, but I'd rather see that effort expended to help
make 2.0 an actual reality, instead of the dream that it has been for
years.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
Re: IPv6
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
> Isn't this a bit much of a change for 1.3? I thought we weren't supposed
> to be adding *any* new features. Meanwhile, we've seen a rash of new
> features over the past couple weeks (e.g. DirIndex stuff, charset stuff).
>
> Why isn't this just punted to 2.0 as a new 2.0 feature? APR might even
> make it a bit cleaner to intro IPv6 support.
I'll all for stopping big changes to 1.3, but we can't do it yet. The
fact is, there is a minority of the group working on 2.0 right now, and
even though development is coming along nicely, and we have a very nice
working server, we are not ready to release yet. We will most likely not
be ready for a beta release until late January, which means a 2.0 release
sometime in March or April most likely. I know we will find bugs when
people try 2.0 on production machines. The changes are too big not to.
:-)
If we are talking about a minimum of another four months before we put in
some of these much requested features, we aren't servicing our users very
well. We have the patches, in some cases, we have had the patches for a
few releases already. We need to include them if it is possible. Waiting
for 2.0 doesn't make sense until we get closer to actually releasing 2.0.
Having said that, I am noticing that we hvae been putting a lot of patches
into the 1.3 tree without moving them into 2.0. Any patches that fit that
description are not going to be forward fit unless somebody steps up to do
it. We have all been a bit lax in this, and I think we all assumed there
would be another merge between the two code bases, but they have diverged
too much, IMO to make a merge clean. We need to figure out what patches
haven;t been put into 2.0 and get them in at some point.
This is all just my 2 cents here.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd
RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers
doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to
see beginners doing complicated patterns.
Re: IPv6
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> According to Rodent of Unusual Size:
>
> > * Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino's [PATCH] IPv6 enable patch
> > ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/apache-134-v6-19990118.diff.gz
> > Message-ID: <18...@coconut.itojun.org>
> > Status: Lars +1 (on concept), Dirkx +1 (tested),
> > Martin +1 (on concept; the patch may need a little cleanup)
>
> I'd like to see this patch in for 1.3.10, but I haven't yet found the
> time to take a closer look at it.
> If anyone is interested I can hook you up with a friend of mine
> who is running an IPv6 box at "freebsd.ipv6.space.net" (Apache with the v6-diff
> is already installed) and is offering free access for ASF members.
>
> Anyone?
Isn't this a bit much of a change for 1.3? I thought we weren't supposed
to be adding *any* new features. Meanwhile, we've seen a rash of new
features over the past couple weeks (e.g. DirIndex stuff, charset stuff).
Why isn't this just punted to 2.0 as a new 2.0 feature? APR might even
make it a bit cleaner to intro IPv6 support.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/