On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
You have only three votes for mod_policy... please fix this today, before I
withdraw what starts to look like an ill-cast vote for introducing code with
dubious support of the community.
only three votes???
How many does he
On 2/29/2012 9:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
You have only three votes for mod_policy... please fix this today, before I
withdraw what starts to look like an ill-cast vote for introducing code with
dubious support of the community.
Graham,
After two months, firehose still didn't obtain another +1, so the vote to
incorporate firehose into trunk stands at 3 +1's, 1 -1, and therefore
failed the vote for inclusion in trunk.
There are 4 +1's for a firehose subproject at httpd. If you wish to continue
this effort you can keep
On 29 Feb 2012, at 12:21 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
After two months, firehose still didn't obtain another +1, so the vote to
incorporate firehose into trunk stands at 3 +1's, 1 -1, and therefore
failed the vote for inclusion in trunk.
I count 4 +1s on the dev@httpd list:
minfrin, issac,
On 2/28/2012 5:47 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 29 Feb 2012, at 12:21 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
After two months, firehose still didn't obtain another +1, so the vote to
incorporate firehose into trunk stands at 3 +1's, 1 -1, and therefore
failed the vote for inclusion in trunk.
I
On 12/18/2011 10:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I proposed instead that you directly propose mod_policy, one of the
three modules, as a core httpd module, because it already has a clear
fit and really needs little further review
On 12/18/2011 7:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
NOBODY suggested that this proposed subproject go into trunk.
I must have been reading a different thread that you when
the issue of having these as subprojects or normal modules
was
On 12/18/2011 7:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
NOBODY suggested that this proposed subproject go into trunk.
I must have been reading a different thread that you when
the issue of having these as subprojects or normal modules
was
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Given that mod_firehose is significantly simpler than mod_policy, I am
struggling to understand given both your stated preference above, and the
preferences of others already stated, why suddenly this is a big issue.
Simpler? Far more
On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
NOBODY suggested that this proposed subproject go into trunk.
I must have been reading a different thread that you when
the issue of having these as subprojects or normal modules
was discussed and Igor and Dan (at least) indicated the
On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I proposed instead that you directly propose mod_policy, one of the
three modules, as a core httpd module, because it already has a clear
fit and really needs little further review (improvements, sure).
What you really said was:
To
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I proposed instead that you directly propose mod_policy, one of the
three modules, as a core httpd module, because it already has a clear
fit and really needs little further review
On 12/17/2011 11:04 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Sat Dec 17 17:03:59 2011
New Revision: 1215525
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1215525view=rev
Log:
mod_firehose: Add a new debugging module able to record traffic
passing through the server in such a way that
13 matches
Mail list logo
