On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 09:55 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean... I think that, at the source > code level, all experimental modules (whether MPMs or > not) should be included (but not *built* when doing > packages).
I guess I wasn't clear. I would like to keep all of our experimental MPMs in the 2.3 development/CVS HEAD tree. I would like to *not* include them in the 2.2 'stable' general availability branch. > After all, the hope is that people try them > out and provide fixes, patches, etc... I don't think this has happened recently at all. Just look at perchild, or any of the other experimental MPMs in the 2.0 Branch. People are not providing patches for them. -Paul Querna
