On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 11:21 PM, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> Does anyone want to rescind or change a vote?
>
Given the points of view perhaps it's better to ask which of these
alternatives seems closest to consensus:
a) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as tied to httpd, mod_proxy
development as running on httpd major (m.n) release cycle, mod_proxy
code as part of httpd-2.0 cvs repository and is released with httpd
distribution.
b) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as tied to httpd, mod_proxy
development as running on httpd major (m.n) release cycle, mod_proxy
code has its own cvs module (hey, we can start module-2.1 now, right),
and is released with httpd distribution.
c) Treating mod_proxy maintenance as NOT tied to httpd, mod_proxy
development as running on its own release cycle, mod_proxy code has its
own cvs module (hey, we can start module-2.1 now, right), and is
released with httpd distribution. Note that this may require some
reintegration at each httpd release (and more work than b).
d) Treating mod_proxy as a separate project like mod_perl, on its own
maintenance and development cycle, own repository, own release dates,
and is not released with httpd, but runs under apache.org.
e) not even remotely any of the above
Note that, unlike Graham, I presume that there is future
development/redesign to be done on mod_proxy.
It'd sure be nice to not have to hit a moving target whilst riding in a
rollercoaster, though. 8^)
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
http://www.topsail.org/
