Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 56491 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2003 02:58:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 56451 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2003 02:58:29 -0000 Message-ID: <3E20D9FB.9010304@stason.org> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:59:07 +1100 From: Stas Bekman Organization: Hope, Humanized User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Schaefer Cc: apreq list Subject: Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4) References: <3E1F7C59.9090506@stason.org> <3E20C97A.2020200@stason.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com