On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:54:19AM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Yeah.  I think we can make -vhosts be the equivalent of what we have
> today, and +vhosts do the whole virtual server thing.  I'm willing to
> code it up and trial it, to see how well it works in practice.
Where do you see -vhosts fiting into having multiple instances of a
webapp on a single host ?

> Which leads me onto another TonyTangent(tm).  Once we have something
> implemented, I don't think it should go into Portage straight away.  I
> think we should recruit a small team of knowledgable testers, and roll
> it out to them first for a whole cycle or two of release/test/scratch
> head/try again.  It'll take a bit longer, sure, but it'll mean that
> what goes into Portage and into general use will already be bedded in.
On the experience I gained from working on the php eclass and ufed,
Portage is a very good distribution mechanism, even if it is only for
initial testing. Just keep it hardmasked while testing with a few big
warnings. This also enables us to get a very wide test base including
outside users if we so desire. The concept of an initial testing run is
definetly worthwhile, but also a strong warning that what you intend as
a testing round has a hard habit of sticking around a lot longer than
expected no matter what form it is in.

> Btw, talked to Woodchip on IRC tonight, and he seemed happy enough
> with us moving the default -vhosts DocRoot from /home/httpd.  So I'm
> gonna strongly advocate that the default -vhosts DocRoot moves to
> /var/www/localhost/public_html in the near future.
Sounds good.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85