Greg, this seems OK to me. I don't think there will be a problem sharing the doc and build directories for multiple efforts.
On Monday, February 12, 2001, at 08:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Between myself, Ryan, and Chuck, there are three +1 votes. I'll probably do > the move later on tonite (after the 1am PST time that I mentioned). > > I'll set up a STATUS file with Ryan's set of benchmarks. > > I'm considering the following layout: > > /home/cvs/httpd-proxy/ > build/ > docs/ > module-2.0/ # mod_proxy for Apache 2.0 > > If the mod_proxy developers want to spin up separate efforts, they can > create other subdirs. Maybe have a mod_revproxy or mod_cacheproxy or > whatever. If mod_proxy is split into a few modules, they can also go in as > subdirs. > > Please provide feedback since it is easier to move files to the right place > now, rather than later. > [ actually, you can do a lot of moving later if you aren't worried about > snapshot consistency for a given tag; you'll probably not have *any* tags > for a while, so it may be okay ] > > The top-level, build, and docs directories will be empty since a new system > will need to be put into place. I would recommend looking at the apr-util > build directory for a template. The buildconf and configure scripts should > be quite simple, since you'll just be setting options rather than > portability stuff (since that is solved by APR). You should use libtool, so > the module will be built the same as Apache (you won't need to fetch a lot > of Apache-specific flags and stuff via apxs). Basically: there will be a bit > of rampup (downtime) to get mod_proxy building on its own, but it shouldn't > be too bad. I'd also recommend that you don't worry about static Apache > builds for now; it is a very difficult issue for externally-built systems. > > After the move, then additional committers can be added as needed. That can > be done with a request to the HTTPD PMC (I imagine Chuck will be making > these requests). This process is still a bit TBD, as the proxy subgroup will > need to get itself into working shape. I will also posit that the PMC won't > have any problem adding committers recommended by Chuck, so you just have to > sell yourself to him :-) > > Cheers, > -g > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:27:03AM -0500, Chuck Murcko wrote: > > On Saturday, February 10, 2001, at 12:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > > > Great. We had a big discussion, and it has died off without any voting. > > > > The > > > > problem is that abstention doesn't tell us what to do, one way or the > > > > other. > > > > Let's try another tack: > > > > > > > > modules/proxy/ will move to its own CVS module sometime Tuesday or > > > > Wednesday (i.e. I'll get to it one of those two days) > > > > > > > > > > > > That leaves you through Monday (let's say Tuesday 1am) to state your > > > > vote. > > > > You can vote on the list, or in STATUS. > > > > > > Well, I'm guilty of abstaining, because I wanted to let other people make > > > > > > the decision, but since that tack didn't work, +1 for moving the > > > code. However, before we do that, I would like to come up with some > > > benchmarks that would allow it to be moved back into the code. That will > > > > > > encourage people to work on the code, because we are giving them a way to > > > > > > get it back in the code, and it enforces the idea that we aren't dropping > > > > > > the code, we are trying to help it. > > > > > > Those benchmarks could be as simple as: > > > > > > 1) The code compiles are runs as often as any code in the tree > > > 2) The functionality makes sense for an HTTP proxy > > > 3) There is an active maintainer who is or can become an ASF > > > member. > > > > > > Just some ideas off the top of my head. Whatever benchmarks we choose > > > should be in the STATUS file for mod_proxy, unless the mod_proxy people > > > want to remove them. > > > > > > > Works for me. Put 'em in there, along with the three simple goals from > > mod_proxy.h. +1 on moving the code. Just make the benchmarks clear, as Ryan > > suggests. > > Chuck Murcko Topsail Group http://www.topsail.org/
