Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/proxy proxy_http.c

From: Greg Stein <gstein(at)lyra.org>
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 19:19:16 EST

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:32:54PM -0500, Ben Hyde wrote:

>...

> I think we'd all agree that the choice is about what triggers greatest
> chance of development happening is a good thing to focus on.

Agreed here :-)

> If it's
> the barrier of not having a more open CVS repository for it then
> certainly we should fix that - but I suspect it's more a matter of not
> having a sufficent need. Shipping it with the beta, along with an
> invitation to help get it working, will put it in reach of a lot more
> people. I'm reasonably certain that some of those people we desperately
> desire a working version and that will be sufficent to thing rolling
> again.

What is the difference between shipping a broken / poor proxy in the beta, and separately shipping it [from a different CVS module] ? To some extent, the latter is even more of a motivator: if the functionality just isn't there by default, then those that desire it will get crackin'.

Our problem is getting enough people to actually work on the codebase for a significant and prolonged period. No matter how to want to slice it or explain it, it all boils down to a lack of volunteers right now.

When those volunteers arrive, for whatever reason, they will be able to work on it anywhere it lives. And if that is the case, then can somebody provide a good reason for why it must remain in the core? (where it just bogs us down, per my "history" email)

Cheers,
-g

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

Received on Thu Feb 8 00:17:41 2001