Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:26:54 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] mod_proxy in?
Message-ID: <20010418102653.C31832@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org
References: <03d401c0c812$09c1b470$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104181018040.8073-100000@mail.gator.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104181018040.8073-100000@mail.gator.net>;
 from blue@gator.net on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:23:07AM -0400

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:23:07AM -0400, Blue Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > Not against a 'roll-up' release here, of core + release-quality
> > branded modules, but I'm suggesting we let these many (valuable!)
> > sub-projects run at their own paces.
> 
> IANACAD, but I much prefer the module-neutral release cycles. It works
> out well for mod_perl and etc, and I would much rather see more of the
> quick apache releases, especially right now with things coming
> together more quickly, than having to wait on modules I won't ever use.

Same here. I think the separate nature has been quite good for mod_proxy,
and it could continue very well on its own, with separate release schedules
and whatnot. It definitely needs to be more prominent, so that people know
where to go, how to get it, etc, but that is mostly some wordsmithing on web
pages and stuff.

I'd say -0 on integration. Not that it shouldn't be in httpd-2.0, but that I
believe it could accomplish more by remaining separate.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/