From: "David Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:50 PM
> 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.
What I suggested as a roll-up? Of course, we can release these together, including
any new http/https/protocol/proxy/auth and whatnot!
I'm suggesting that given an 8 month pause in 1.3 releases last year, with several
simple win32 proxy fixes dropped in, we dropped the ball. Proxy was fixed, but there
was no push to reroll all of apache-1.3.
A sub-project aught to be able to release as it is ready. If proxy is ready for a
'release' today, then roll one for 2_0_16 (our last beta) and let folks bring it up
to date. 2_0_17 is now broken for some platforms shutdown, so they will be waiting
a while longer to play with proxy. This is the wrongheadedness of rolling in the
entire, complex kitchen sink into httpd-2.0.
When we roll 2_0_18, we aught to roll in the last good tag of proxy. This all
implies an independent sub-versioning schema for these apache sub-projects, and
I don't have an answer off the top of my head. Perhaps those who revamped the
tag/roll/build/release schema have a way this could play well (and perhaps good
arguments against.)
Bill
