OK. Please reply to the proxy development list. I'll add it to the developer page on the web site.
The fact that we're tagged will make this easy. Thanks, Ryan. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Chuck Murcko wrote: > > > I've cc'ed Ryan. Ryan, what version was the original 2.0 proxy code? > > We have a tag in the 1.3 tree from when we did our last merge. That > should have been around 1.3.9. I can't really be any more specific than > that. > > > Depending, it may be easier to proceed with what we've got and patch in > > place. Thoughts? > > Since we have actually tagged the tree, merging the 1.3 proxy into 2.0 may > not be that bad. The reason we stopped merging with 1.3 originally, was > because 1.3 and 2.0 were diverging rapidly. I would suspect that the > proxy code hasn't diverged that much, and a doing a merge would probably > take about a day. > > > I'd also like to move this to the mod_proxy list. Objections? > > We absolutely must get these discussions moved to the proxy list. The > proxy isn't developing because nobody knows what is going on with > it. There are a bunch of very cool things that we could do with the > proxy, but not if nobody knows about them. > > Ryan > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 406 29th St. > San Francisco, CA 94131 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Chuck Chuck Murcko Topsail Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
