Well, why not do the same as we've done for APR? I don't see why mod_proxy
can be "bundled" in the same way can't it? It seems to make sense as both
an included "entity" and a seperate project.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:23:07AM -0400, Blue Lang wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Not against a 'roll-up' release here, of core + release-quality
> > > branded modules, but I'm suggesting we let these many (valuable!)
> > > sub-projects run at their own paces.
> >
> > IANACAD, but I much prefer the module-neutral release cycles. It works
> > out well for mod_perl and etc, and I would much rather see more of the
> > quick apache releases, especially right now with things coming
> > together more quickly, than having to wait on modules I won't ever use.
>
> Same here. I think the separate nature has been quite good for mod_proxy,
> and it could continue very well on its own, with separate release
schedules
> and whatnot. It definitely needs to be more prominent, so that people know
> where to go, how to get it, etc, but that is mostly some wordsmithing on
web
> pages and stuff.
>
> I'd say -0 on integration. Not that it shouldn't be in httpd-2.0, but that
I
> believe it could accomplish more by remaining separate.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
