>> Of course. Apache 1.3 is an old, legacy application, and vastly less >> capable than current versions.
But millions and millions of users rely on it everyday. What might help migration is a simple chart showcasing the differences between 2.x and 1.x I'm no power user of Apache but I still can't see why Apache 2.x is a "MUST HAVE" vs. a stable product in use by millions of users. Apache is facing a marketing problem not a technology problem Peter -----Original Message----- From: Nick Kew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch for mod_log_config to allow conditioning on status code On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Glenn Strauss wrote: > I don't want to discourage Luc, but there's a steep uphill battle > to getting anything into Apache 1.3. Of course. Apache 1.3 is an old, legacy application, and vastly less capable than current versions. It's still maintained, but noone is in the business of adding new *features*. 2.1 is where interesting things happen, while 2.0 is intermediate: new features may be added, but stability and binary-compatibility are more important. I might review and incorporate a third-party patch for 2.x, but certainly wouldn't for 1.x unless someone was paying. > diff -ruN apache_1.3.31/src/main/http_log.c apache_1.3.31-new/src/main/http_log.c > --- apache_1.3.31/src/main/http_log.c 2004-02-16 17:29:33.000000000 -0500 > +++ apache_1.3.31-new/src/main/http_log.c 2004-05-24 12:26:06.000000000 -0400 Bugzilla is a good place for patches like that. People who want it can help themselves, without compromising stability. -- Nick Kew
