> Brad Nicholes wrote: > > > So it seems like we burned all of our bridges. We had somebody > > working on it until we added it in. Then the author stopped so we took > > it out. Now we not only don't have anybody working on it, we also don't > > have it. > > I don't think it's a case of noone working on it (there have been some > commits lately), I think it's a case of it not getting any exposure. > People "out there" don't consider it part of httpd if it doesn't come in > the httpd download. > > Also the concept of "working on it" needs clarification. If the thing > works as it stands, then there is no reason to commit anything to it. > However some people have translated "no commits to the code" as meaning > "noone is maintaining it", which I believe is wrong. > > "Maintaining it" means that someone here is willing to respond to > reported PRs, and to answer questions about it, and to review patches. > From what I've seen there are a few people here who have shown their > willingness to do it to date (in the form of emails answered and patches > committed), so to all intents and purposes we can call the thing > "maintained". > > > IMO, if we put it back at least in experimental, maybe we can > > get developers working on it again (including the author). > > If it goes in experimental, then we can get it *tested*. The code came > from a well established v1.3 module with a rich feature set. It was then > modified to fit into Apache v2.0. There is no reason I can see why it > shouldn't work as it stands, apart from bugs introduced by it being in a > threaded environment where it wasn't before (some of which have already > been found and fixed). > > I would argue that "experimental" would be the best place for it until > it matures. > > > Since the code already exists and seems to > > work, putting it into /experimental until it stabilizes seems like a > > simple thing to do. > > No argument there.
+1 on putting it into experimental. Bill
