On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:46, Thom May wrote: > * Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > > Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > > > At the risk of racing too far ahead in this discussion, here is my > > > suggestion... 2.0.43 becomes 2.1 and the MMN major does not change for > > > subsequent 2.1 series releases (except for a compelling reason, eg a > > > security fix -requires- a bump). Why 2.1? No technical reason; purely a PR > > > tactic to telegraph to the user community we are putting a lot of focus on > > > maintaining binary backward compatability and to get rid of the *.0.* in the > > > version number (yea, to appease the folks who are allergic to 0's in version > > > numbers). > > > > > > > I like. > > > Me too. >
Not to make a me too post BUT.. me too. I've been using apache 2. on non critical projects or where I MUST use apache 2. (IE Subversion repository). So far, it's stable BUT (and I stress this HIGHLY) it's not been pounded on AT all. IE at most, 100 hits in a day by 3 or 4 people AT most! :) -- Jeff Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
