I mostly concur with Justin Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 1/18/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The mod_ftp PPMC has voted on graduation and it was approved[1]. >> We are now asking the httpd PMC to approve graduation. > > +1.
+1 >> One topic for discussion is whether it should be a "subproject" >> of httpd (ala mod_mbox, mod_python, ...) or simply >> added to httpd-trunk under modules/. > > +1 for a separate directory (ala mod_mbox) > -1 on any new mailing lists (ala mod_python) - all dev/release > discussion concerning mod_ftp should be on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto > +0 on importing to httpd-trunk/modules. (I could be persuaded to put > it there - by the time we go to 2.4, I can live with the bloat...) A qualified +1 on httpd-trunk/modules/ --- with a caviat that it not be deposited into branches/2.4.x/ when we fork. I don't want to see ftp slow down a release of 2.4.0 - we have many auth and configuration improvements, and there's an increasing stress to backport too many new features. Reaching this breaking point means we need to change focus from 2.2.x to making 2.4.0 ready, and I believe shipping mod_ftp on such an expedited schedule in the core isn't in 2.4's interest. I'm +1 to releasing mod_ftp code for users who specifically want these features, putting it in front of the broader communities, and therefore subjecting it to the usual scrutiny. I believe 9 to 15 months from it's broader release it will be ready to ship with the release versions of httpd. For now, there's no reason not to offer it to anyone playing on trunk, as long as --enable-ftp is required, and not default. Bill
