Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
> Given the points of view perhaps it's better to ask which of these
> alternatives seems closest to consensus:
>
> 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.
>
My own personal pref is for either c or d. If I had to choose between
those 2, then I'd choose d
I think folding it back into httpd development will cause it to
"flounder" again.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Hell is hot, that's never been disputed by anybody."
