Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 17400 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2001 21:00:45 -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 17380 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 21:00:44 -0000 Message-ID: <049601c08fb7$e7d35db0$e4421b09@raleigh.ibm.com> From: "Bill Stoddard" To: References: Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/proxy proxy_http.c Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:09:19 -0500 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > > Woah... having trouble with a module is very different than missing a > > maintainer. And mod_rewrite is arguably much more important to people than > > mod_proxy. > > > > I would suggest working on simplifying and reducing the code, rather than > > punting it. It may be possible to make it more maintainable, than to just > > toss it because of a few bugs. > > Who is currently maintaining mod_rewrite? I am not in favor of punting mod_rewrite. For the most part it just works. If it breaks, someone generally steps up to fix the break, which is -not- true for mod_proxy. Bill