On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Chris Darroch <chr...@pearsoncmg.com>wrote:
> > I'm +1 on the idea of moving toward inclusion in httpd trunk > as a module, at least as a longer-term goal. My thoughts were: > > - Start by branching httpd/mod_fcgid/branches/2.x/mod_fcgid based on > the current relicensed code, just in case an "emergency" turns up > (security bug?) and we'd like to do a release based on the existing > code; most likely, we won't use this going forward. Many people use mod_fcgid on Apache 2.0/2.2. The message should be that mod_fcgid development has moved to the ASF, and existing users are not being left behind in the transition. So a branch for mod_fcgid 2.x is maintained for httpd 2.0/2.2 users just as our own stable branches are maintained (FAR beyond emergencies, at least for 2.2.x). This isn't necessarily in opposition to what you said, but some might read it as something like "Apache took over and they won't distribute fixes that work with my existing configurations except in extreme circumstances." (But of course we should include in httpd trunk for Apache 2.4 and beyond, and make any appropriate changes for consistency, new directions, etc.) - Before we can add to httpd trunk, we need to look at the directive > names. There are a large number of config directives with names > that don't imply FastCGI and in some cases are a little mysterious. > I don't think we can drop 32 new directives into httpd with generic > names like "SocketPath" and "PassHeader". Trunk is a fine place to address those issues. BTW, thanks for all your work on this!!!
