Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:45:19 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: what about proxy? (was: Re: General Availability release qualities?)
Message-ID: <20010910124519.J21249@lyra.org>
References: <20010908113348.P2482@ebuilt.com> <3B9B5D99.CBCD4408@sharp.fm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <3B9B5D99.CBCD4408@sharp.fm>;
 from minfrin@sharp.fm on Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:16:25PM +0200

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:16:25PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
> > - Resolve the proxy situation.  A lot of committers (FirstBill
> >   comes to mind) would like to see this come back in the core.
> >   If it is ready and the group consensus is to add it, then let's
> >   add it back in before GA.
> 
> As FirstBill said, adding it back received the needed +1's when it went
> to vote. After all the discussion had subsided though, it was simply not
> done.
> 
> As I said on thursday, later this evening I'll be comitting the proxy
> module to it's placeholder in the core.

When you say placeholder, are you suggesting that you're going to commit the
code back into the httpd-2.0 branch?

Rather than doing that, why don't we work on the rollup mechanism instead?
Proxy has been moving along terrifically while in its own CVS module.

Cheers,
-g

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