Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6506509B-B530-440D-BC13-1FFE66C7234B@jaguNET.com>
References: <6506509B-B530-440D-BC13-1FFE66C7234B@jaguNET.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:55:58 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKUrXK74bG=2MOkDsmnPoXg_YTbVeqwOCgjN7o9ELRfr2ocWng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)=85
>
> The only 2 showstoppers I see as "reasonable" are the
> documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding
> doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the
> question is what to do about mod_fcgid=85 What's the best
> way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy
> trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn
> mojo? etc=85?

The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO.  Much to my
disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that
no one else has either.  There's little time remaining in 2.4
development and no apparent tuits to make effective use of the
bundling by moving towards a more 2.4-centric/exploitive
implementation, and at the same time bundling means one more test
scenario for getting fixes out to users of fcgid with 2.2.x.

For users, bundling saves one download and one tar/unzip.  It builds
within the httpd tree currently if desired.