Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030918122254.05090d10@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:37:30 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org, docs@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0309170913100.5883@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

[Moved this thread from infrastructure/pmc]

Hello dev@'ers and docs@'ers...

the infrastructure team has been trying to mop up some very old repositories,
and the only question is which should remain within our generally accessible
CVS space, which should be collected into a new graveyard/{project} repository,
and finally, which should be tarred up over to http://archive.apache.org/dist/.

You can see that Brian had parked the entire cvs repository into a tarball over in http://archive.apache.org/dist/java/java.apache.org-cvs-archive.tar.gz
for those who want to play with jserv et. al.

Here are the candidates that are strongly +1 for simply archiving
away in a tarball over at archive.apache.org:

  apache-2.0, apache-apr and apache-nspr

since these were never converted into a release - all of the relevant
history of httpd is contained within the apache-1.3, httpd-2.0 and 
apr[-*] trees.  You can follow the evolution with the release trees.

The following trees might be tarred up if nobody has any significant
interest in 'keeping them handy' for reference:

    apache-site, apache-devsite, 

Docco folks, any reason we want these hand?

The following trees are of historic interest, and have folks eyeballing them for 
the 'reasons', e.g. commit messages, that code had changed or for security
issues that might still exist today on older servers:

    apache-1.2, httpd-proxy

My feeling is that *if* they move at all, they need to be publicly accessible from
a graveyard repository.  Are their objections to moving them?  If we moved the rcs
files from httpd-proxy directly to httpd-2.0/modules/proxy - there doesn't seem to
be any need to hang onto it then (I can't remember how that merge was done.)
Additional thoughts or comments?

Finally, someone else brought up httpd-pop.  I'm guessing we want this commonly
available (although updated) and possibly brought into sync (and used to help with
the design and flexiblity) with httpd-2.1.  It provides an example (perhaps not the
very greatest, but more sophisticated than mod_echo) for aspiring protocol authors.
So I'm personally against moving that bit, but other thoughs and observations?

http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can 
help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.

Bill


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org