httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Sun, 12 Jan 2003 02:59:07 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Stas Bekman <> writes:
> [...]
>>We all agree that waiting for httpd people to give a grace is a complete 
>>waste of time. I suggest that we ask Brian Behlendorf to create the 
>>apreq-2.0 repository and start working there. It's important for 
>>preserving the history of changes. I see no reason why not to do it 
>>*now*. Having a repository doesn't mean having a production version of 
>>the code.
> Yes, agreed- that would be best.  Unfortunately, according to 
> /home/cvs/README, the first step in creating a new cvs repository is:
>   (a) Get permission from your PMC. The PMC must approve the addition
>   of any repository and should be contacted through the normal means.
> That puts us back at square one, since (I think) our PMC is httpd.  
> I haven't yet lowered my self-esteem enough to now beg them for a 
> new repository to begin our work.  
> If there's a way to make things happen within our existing 
> repository, that'd be a lot less painful for me to endure.  
> At least then, it's just technical obstacles that we will face.

Let me run this through the asf members list. I have no clue what's the 
status of the apreq project is. I thought it was a standalone project 
with its own pmc. Hopefully this can be resolved quickly.

I pretty much doubt anybody at httpd will be against creating a new 
apreq-2.0 rep. or is it httpd-apreq-2.0?

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message