Re: Punt the Proxy

I should probably comment on this. I am the person who suggesting removing the proxy from the tree. I am also one of the people who did the port to 2.0, just to prove that I am not against the proxy.

What I am against, is having a bunch of code in the tree that doesn't compile when it is downloaded, and hasn't been worked on in ages.

The current proposal doesn't kill the proxy, it removes it with an option to add it back. The idea is that the proxy will be moved off to another repository, where people who want to work on it can easily. All comments can be sent here, and the CVS tree would have it's own mailing list as well. When the code becomes stable and there is an active maintainer, somebody who makes sure the code always compiles, the proxy may get back into the httpd-2.0 tree.

If it doesn't, the proxy would be a sub-project of httpd, and it would have a prominant spot on the httpd.apache.org web page.

This is just a way to shink the size of the httpd tarball, by removing some code that isn't currently being maintained.

Ryan

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Eli Marmor wrote:

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related httpd.apache.org Links announce bugs cvs dev docs gui-dev modproxy-dev packagers testers Request more information about Pantek

> Hi list!

Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org