Re: Punt the Proxy

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:36:59AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> Eli Marmor wrote:
> >
> > I hope I didn't sound too much flaming...

[ this is actually quite hard to do because of the Reply-To munging ]

> > I remember at least 3 different people (don't remember their names; I

Exactly. And we bring up tossing the proxy, and people jump back in for a week, then go away and proxy languishes again. Chuck has now said "I've got some patches!". They'll get applied, and we won't see him again for several months (just like last time).

This is bogus, and we should stop deluding ourselves that proxy is being maintained. Hell, that it is even getting finished.

>...

Right. If people need the proxy functionality, then they know it is on apache.org; they grab it and install it. No big deal.

> > I believe that proxy must stay in the standard tree. If the problem is

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

Oh, shut up. We aren't responsible for the proxy code. Every works on what they want to work on. We can't point at somebody and say "you are now the maintainer." That just doesn't work in an Open Source project.

We'll move the code into a new CVS tree, and then YOU work on it. Don't come crying to us because your favorite feature is being moved to a different tree. We aren't here to please you, we're here to work on things that are interesting to us.

If you want it, then step up to the plate and contribute your time. If you don't want to spend your own time on it, then just go away.

>...

I'm with Ryan. If the proxy cannot be built as a separate entity, then we need to refactor the core to make it possible. But the core does not necessarily need to explicitly deal with proxy.

> > I just think about the MANY existing users of it. I'm sure there are

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. BeOS and Netware users are taking the time to make Apache work on their platform. Nobody is doing that for proxy.

The number of end users is totally irrelevant. It is all about the people *working* on the code. We are not here to satisfy end users' entire scope of needs. We are here to satisfy them where their needs intersect our desires.

>...

I totally agree. Move the proxy out. Let people work on it and get it functional. Then make a decision at that point to include it into the tree or to keep the development separate.

Do you need more 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

But keeping it in the tree hasn't work for at least a year, probably two. Enough is enough. Move it out.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, 
http://www.lyra.org/