On Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 08:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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.
>
Aha, now we're getting somewhere. I thought that last bit was running
through the discussion as an undercurrent, but no one was actually
writing the words down.
I'd suggest temporarily running in c) mode for a few httpd releases
(this is what we're already doing AFAICS), to demonstrate that there is
actually sustained developer interest in keeping mod_proxy current, even
though there are no "full timers on httpd" currently involved (yes,
really). That'll let us settle down our test/release process. And let
Graham get on with the cache in the meantime.
Then maybe we can think about narrowing the choices down to a), b) or
c). Regardless, we'd like to keep the httpd-proxy cvs module as a
sandbox to work on TNG ideas in.
It kind of all hinges on whether you view this whole exercise as some
kind of carrot and stick thing or not. That is, are we working on the
proxy to get back into httpd, or because we think it's a (at some deep
geek level) cool thing to do that users will like (esp. Big Users, as
Ian and Iain seem to indicate)?
Personally, I'm thinking the latter here.
Make sense?
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
http://www.topsail.org/
