what about proxy? (was: Re: General Availability release qualities?)

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:16:25PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
> > - Resolve the proxy situation.  A lot of committers (FirstBill
> >   comes to mind) would like to see this come back in the core.
> >   If it is ready and the group consensus is to add it, then let's
> >   add it back in before GA.
> 
> As FirstBill said, adding it back received the needed +1's when it went
> to vote. After all the discussion had subsided though, it was simply not
> done.
> 
> As I said on thursday, later this evening I'll be comitting the proxy
> module to it's placeholder in the core.

When you say placeholder, are you suggesting that you're going to commit the
code back into the httpd-2.0 branch?

Rather than doing that, why don't we work on the rollup mechanism instead?
Proxy has been moving along terrifically while in its own CVS module.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: what about proxy?

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Greg Stein wrote:

> I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.

Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:

o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz

  Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
  httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.

o Option B: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz

  Combine httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util into apache-2.x.x.tar.gz,
  and combine httpd-proxy, httpd-ldap into apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz.

o Option C: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-proxy-2.x.x.tar.gz,
  apache-ldap-2.x.x.tar.gz

  Combine httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util into apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, 
  and combine httpd-proxy into apache-proxy-2.x.x.tar.gz, and
  combine httpd-ldap into apache-ldap-2.x.x.tar.gz.

o Option D: something else...

Regards,
Graham
-- 
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm		"There's a moon
					over Bourbon Street
						tonight..."

Re: what about proxy?

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 04:11:16AM -0400, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 04:01 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
> >> Rather than doing that, why don't we work on the rollup mechanism 
> >> instead?
> >> Proxy has been moving along terrifically while in its own CVS module.
> >
> > We can do this too - but then I'd say we would need to finalise the
> > rollup release issue before we can go GA. Who is willing to sort out the
> > rollup release?
> 
> Most of the stuff to build a rollup release is already running in the 
> proxy builds.

My suggestion is to take what you learned in proxy, and establish the
httpd-rollup project (I posted on this earlier, something with "rollup" in
the subject).

Since you guys have already been doing it, then it makes sense to formalize
that into a project. The project would mostly just be some scripts and
things, but it could grab code from "anywhere" to roll together a release.

Hell... we haven't even started talking about bundling some of our Java and
XML tools with the web server. Lots of neat things that could happen there,
too.

I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.

[ if (since?) mod_ldap is going out, then we have to deal with the rollup
  anyways, which would totally kill any impetus for putting proxy back in.
  thus, I'm against bringing proxy back into the core. ]

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: what about proxy? (was: Re: General Availability release qualities?)

[Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 04:01 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:

>> Rather than doing that, why don't we work on the rollup mechanism 
>> instead?
>> Proxy has been moving along terrifically while in its own CVS module.
>
> We can do this too - but then I'd say we would need to finalise the
> rollup release issue before we can go GA. Who is willing to sort out the
> rollup release?
>

Most of the stuff to build a rollup release is already running in the 
proxy builds.

Chuck

Re: what about proxy? (was: Re: General Availability release qualities?)

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Greg Stein wrote:

> When you say placeholder, are you suggesting that you're going to commit the
> code back into the httpd-2.0 branch?

Yes - in the last (long) discussion it got the needed +1's, but it was
never done.

I've delayed actually committing the thing yet to make sure people have
time to complain about me doing it :)

> Rather than doing that, why don't we work on the rollup mechanism instead?
> Proxy has been moving along terrifically while in its own CVS module.

We can do this too - but then I'd say we would need to finalise the
rollup release issue before we can go GA. Who is willing to sort out the
rollup release?

Regards,
Graham
-- 
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm		"There's a moon
					over Bourbon Street
						tonight..."