Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 63508 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2001 19:02:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 63266 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:02:53 -0000 Message-ID: <022e01c08fa6$21d00d40$6100000a@roweclan.net> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: References: Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/proxy proxy_http.c Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:02:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:57 AM > > I never thought I would suggest this. I think we should remove the proxy > from the tree. I am subscribed to the proxy mailing list, and it is dead > and has been for a very long time. The code doesn't compile, and nobody > seems all that interested in making it compile. Unless we are actually > going to develop that code, I do not believe it belongs in the tree. > > I would suggest the following setup. > > Let's create a separate cvs tree for mod_proxy on apache.org. If it > continues to be dead, then we can ignore it. If it starts to pick up > speed, then at some point we could merge it back into the httpd-2.0 tree. httpd-proxy-2.0? +1 This is a substantial entity into and of itself. There are a number of ASF projects that are fully integrated into httpd-2.0, but don't reside in the primary tree. Take modperl-2.0 for example. You could argue RFC2616 is the httpd-2.0 subset. I don't.