httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Proposal: adoption of mod_policy subproject
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:19:40 GMT
On 2/29/2012 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:32 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> It's the reason why mod_aspdotnet was ejected, and why mod_arm4, mod_ftp and
>> perhaps even mod_fcgid are all on their way out of the project as it is, unless
>> more committers participate in those subprojects.
> The other way to approach it is to simply move them *into* the main
> project, and not as "subprojects"...

Jim, I respectfully, but profoundly disagree.  To have one or fewer
active maintainers of a given module in the core distribution is far
more problematic than having a stale subproject.  The stale subproject
cries out for attention if users or developers want to make a release.
The core module languishes and impacts more and more users, and the
very reputation of this project.

> We've seen that subprojects do NOT work. There is more activity
> when they are in the main tree. With the exception of mod_arm4 (which
> I've never looked at), I would be MORE than comfy having both mod_ftp
> and mod_fcgid moved into the main tree today.

First you've made a blind assertion.  Please document how subprojects
do not work, so we can get on the same page?

If ftp/fcgid should be in trunk (and I'm very, very close to agreeing
with you) it is only *because* they lived seperate and distinct lives
and have reached some level of collaboration and maturity.  You and
I and several bugzilla contributors have offered fixes to mod_ftp.
Jeff and I and several bugzilla contributors have offered fixes to
mod_fcgid.  Small but measurable communities of contributors.

What is proposed here is for mod_policy and two others to be blindly
dropped into httpd trunk without contributors, no oversight, not even
ip clearance.  You and I aren't likely to come to agreement on this.

That isn't how we are supposed to work.  Therefore I'm -1 altogether
to accepting any of these three contributions until minfrin demonstrates
collaboration, apologizes for wasting an incredible amount of many of
his colleagues' hours over the whole ldap mess of his creation, and now
apologizes for either misinterpreting or misrepresenting the votes cast
for these subprojects.  If he had any credibility, I'd be immediately
supportive of three subprojects, where he could prove his ability to
both collaborate and find development support for these creations.  Any
other outcome is yet another code dump.

View raw message