At 01:37 PM 8/11/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >At 01:03 PM 8/11/2004, Graham Leggett wrote: >> >>My plan is to start bringing it into httpd v2.1 from next week, assessing >>how hard the backports to httpd v2.0 would potentially be. Is the history >>kept in the tomcat connector tree enough, or is it critical to get the full >>history into httpd HEAD? > >If it weren't critical, the Apache Group would still be kicking around patch >files and tarballs :)
<sarcasm=off/> This has been committed with full history retained (dropping a few backed-out patches.) >I'm looking at the mechanics of moving this already. This is done. Don't make me hurt you for causing more development on the jakarta-tomcat-connectors/ajp/proxy/ fork!!! Please blast that branch into the attic before someone sends my blood pressure through the roof (again :) Graham, please commit those patches from ajp developers as needed (for the time being.) Remember 2.0-HEAD is C-T-R. I've protected the -I ./ajp within the --enable-proxy-ajp feature, and fixed for broken vpath builds. What about adding a -with-ajp=/path/to/ajp feature, which would enable the proxy-ajp based on the --enable-proxy setting? As it stands with my commits, ajp is disabled unless explicitly enabled (due to the ajplib dependency.) I have no problems if we also add ajp* sources to either modules/proxy itself, or bury it in apr-util (should be brought up with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.) Bill
