Apache auto-reconfiguration discussions

[James G Smith <jg...@jamesmith.com>]

Considering that the set of people interested in the Apache 
reconfiguration project is not a proper subset of those 
interested in subscribing to new-httpd, and those on new-httpd 
are not all interested in the details of the project, a mailing 
list has been setup for those wanting to discuss the details of 
the definition and implementation.  Periodic progress reports 
will be made to new-httpd for those that might be interested in 
following the development, but would rather not be involved in 
the day-to-day discussions.  This list also means we don't have 
to keep track in our aliases file of who is currently discussing 
the project.

As details become more settled, they will be placed on a web 
page.  An archive of the list will also be made available.

To subscribe to the mailing list, email 

                modconfig-subscribe@jamesmith.com

------------------------------------+------------------------------------------
James Smith - jgsmith@jamesmith.com | http://www.jamesmith.com/
            jsmith@sourcegarden.org | http://sourcegarden.org/
              jgsmith@tamu.edu      | http://cis.tamu.edu/systems/opensystems/
------------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Re: Apache auto-reconfiguration discussions

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, James G Smith wrote:
> Considering that the set of people interested in the Apache 
> reconfiguration project is not a proper subset of those 
> interested in subscribing to new-httpd, and those on new-httpd 
> are not all interested in the details of the project, a mailing 
> list has been setup for those wanting to discuss the details of 
> the definition and implementation.  Periodic progress reports 
> will be made to new-httpd for those that might be interested in 
> following the development, but would rather not be involved in 
> the day-to-day discussions.  This list also means we don't have 
> to keep track in our aliases file of who is currently discussing 
> the project.

Typically, discussions just continue right on new-httpd without regard to
interest level. People are quite familiar with the 'd' key and when they
feel like using it :-) Fragmenting discussions and splitting archives
doesn't help much when people want to go back and review discussions /
rationales / designs.

Personally... I'm with Dean on this. Code talks. When all is said and
done, the project members become truly interested only when code shows up.
Sure, there may be some minor discussion about what the right design could
be, but 9 times out of 10, the members wait for code, *then* say the
design is wrong :-). Wasted effort? Possibly. I think it boils down to the
implementor not being able to *succinctly* state their intended design.
When it hits a page of text, the eyeballs glaze up and people just wait
for code...

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/