On 06.05.2009 14:39, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It would certainly be easier to maintain a 2.2-proxy branch, with the > intent of it actually being folded *into* 2.2, if the branch used the > same dir structure as trunk, that is, a separate directory that includes > the balancer methods (as well as the config magic associated with it). > > However, if that will be a impediment to actually *getting* these > backports into 2.2, then I'm willing to keep the old structure... > > So my question is: if to be able to easily backport the various trunk > proxy improvements into 2.2, we also need to backport the dir > structure as well, is that OK? I don't want to work down that > path only to have it wasted work because people think that such a > directory restructure doesn't make sense within a 2.2.x release. > > PS: NO, I am not considering this for 2.2.12! :)
I guess at the heart of this is the question, how likely we break some part of the users build process for 2.2.x. My feeling is, that the additional sub directory for the balancing method implementations is a small change and users build process should not break due to this additional one directory. On the positive side apart from easier backports: the new subdirectory might make people more curious on how to add a custom balancing method, so we get a slightly better visibility for the existing provider interface. Regards, Rainer
