At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> In the message above, I don't >> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that >> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in >> interpreting it that way? >> > >+++1
Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now. Therefore, you are stating that developers are not free to introduce radical new code at the present moment, and only things that fit within Apache 2.0 [subject to perpetual debate over what exactly what fits within 2.0] are open for community development efforts. Please see my other post about offering a 2.1 working branch within the httpd-2.0 tree, maintained only by the 2.1 contributors, and please offer your opinions of that solution. This would apply to docs as well, since folks interested in documenting the demise of mod_access and introduction of mod_authn/authz_foo modules would be free to proceed, while not interfering with the primary httpd-2.0 docs, and picking up revisions and changes by merging the ongoing activity within the httpd-2.0 tree. Bill
