> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:31 AM > To: dev@httpd.apache.org; Gavin McDonald > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gavin McDonald > <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM > >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? > >> > >> > This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within > >> > the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and > >> > start upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have > >> > objections, I suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try > >> > out the new system before you make up your mind - it's got lots of > >> > improvements, both for visitors and module authors. > >> > >> 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we > > stepped > >> up to support in the not so distant past. > > > > hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the > > infra repo ? > > I think you're contrasting httpd vs. infra and saying we didn't live up to our > end of the bargain. I'm not disagreeing with that, and I guess "step up" is > probably a bit misleading. > > What I intended to convey was that people cared about this during the last > reboot (whether or not we fulfilled a committment properly), and that 72h > lazy was not enough consideration for them and the submitters of data. > > I could be totally misunderstanding you though. Do you take issue with > slowing things down or is this a tangent?
I don't want to start another debate here, but what I intended to say was that perhaps Daniel should just be left to get on with it seeing as no one has wanted to scratch that itch so far. Back when the modules site was move to the ASF hardware a year ago, talk back then was that it needed to be rewritten. So there's been plenty of time for others to step up between now and then. Daniel now has , and in only takes but 5 minutes to see what an improvement it is, it's a no brainer. Then, if this re-invigorates folks to jump in and help with improvements and new features then that's great too. [+] I'll agree that 72 hours [*] may not be enough for some folks if they are away or whatever, lets have Daniel extend until after the weekend then, but really no more, his itch is burning and we shouldn't stop that flow without good reason. And I don't see any good reason. Gav... [+] - I'm here with that intention , hope others do too. [*] - I planted Daniel with the suggestion of 72 hours , so blame me for that, I thought no one would dare object :)
