Re: mod_proxy in v2.0

OK. Please reply to the proxy development list. I'll add it to the developer page on the web site.

The fact that we're tagged will make this easy. Thanks, Ryan.

rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
> > I've cc'ed Ryan. Ryan, what version was the original 2.0 proxy code?
>
> We have a tag in the 1.3 tree from when we did our last merge. That
> should have been around 1.3.9. I can't really be any more specific than
> that.
>
> > Depending, it may be easier to proceed with what we've got and patch in
> > place. Thoughts?
>
> Since we have actually tagged the tree, merging the 1.3 proxy into 2.0 may
> not be that bad. The reason we stopped merging with 1.3 originally, was
> because 1.3 and 2.0 were diverging rapidly. I would suspect that the
> proxy code hasn't diverged that much, and a doing a merge would probably
> take about a day.
>
> > I'd also like to move this to the mod_proxy list. Objections?
>
> We absolutely must get these discussions moved to the proxy list. The
> proxy isn't developing because nobody knows what is going on with
> it. There are a bunch of very cool things that we could do with the
> proxy, but not if nobody knows about them.
>
> Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Chuck
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
chuck@topsail.org