On Fri, 2001-09-07 at 05:32, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, I don't thinking creating a sub-project for one file makes
> > > a lot of sense. -- justin
> >
> > I agree with Justin on this, and disagree with FirstBill and Ryan.
> >
>
> Before we do *anything* I'd like to see:
>
> 1. General consensus that we want this capability added in.
> It seems to me that adding mod_gz is a knee-jerk reaction to
> *not* wanting to add mod_gzip.
and mod_gzip not being available.
the authors have expressly said they no longer want to contribute it.
> 2. That we have a signed contrib agreement for the code.
>
jim. not exactly sure why you need one.
but if you fax/point me to a copy of your agreement I'll fax it to you.
for mod_gz. (fax 415-392-2344)
> I'm sure that many people have avoided the whole discussion because
> of the flames, and it would be pretty stupid if we end up, after the
> dust has settled, removing it ala the LDAP stuff.
>
> This has been a whirlwind situation, so let's take a few breathes
> here... It's not a crucial componant of 2.0, so again, why rush?
--
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - (415) 364-8608
