+1 (binding) also. With regards, Daniel.
On 07/09/2016 10:08 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 18:16 -0600, Jan van Doorn wrote: > >> I don't think the association with ATS would hold us back, but I do think it >> could give prospective users of Traffic Control the impression that it only >> works with ATS. This is true now, but won't be in the future. > > I'm not sure a bit of internal organisation will make much difference > once you start listing TC+TS and TC+Other as equally valid options. > But I don't want to make an issue of it. > >> Only one or two people actively work on both projects, the development >> communities are mostly separate. > > OK, thanks. > >> I'm not familiar with the HTTPD and APR history, is there a lesson we should >> learn from that? > > The main issue we've found is that with a close relationship and with > a large overlap between the dev teams, we've often found a development > in HTTPD driving one in APR, even to the point of "we need a new APR > release that'll support [new HTTPD feature]". At the same time, the > original reason for the separation - that APR has applications outside > httpd (Apache SVN being one such) - works well. > > On reflection, you probably have a cleaner separation than that anyway. > > +1 (binding) to your vote. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
