Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:38:12 +0100
Subject: Re: merging httpd-pop3 into httpd-2.0?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
From: Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@lisanza.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030125150704.03c82270@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <4DAF5076-30AD-11D7-A302-0003934A5A7E@lisanza.net>


On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 10:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 02:43 PM 1/25/2003, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>> 3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
>> If suddenly new modules are added that do are not for the
>> main purpose, I also know various other modules that should
>> be included.
>
> By 'module' do you mean seperate CVS module (I'm guessing so.)

yes, seperate CVS module/package.

> The license is fixed - on the other matter that this is a very cool
> example but underpowered (as Harrie points out) I really believe
> that its current home is just fine.
>
> No rush to move it to experimental.  I'd really like to see us start
> dropping new work right into their eventual homes within the
> modules tree.  They can stay on 2.1-dev (odd) versions till at
> least the authors are happy with what they do.

After sending my message away, I thought of this. Was the
way forward not to make a modular way in which you
had a based (server core) and plugin modules??
Merging this would be an opposite approach.


Harrie
------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server