Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > I agree, though if we change it we may as well go to apache-server-2.4.x > given the noise about protocol-independence.
+1 and I've changed -this- thread subject to discuss what the name is right now. >>> Only recently did people start changing the text to remove httpd, >>> and that was certainly not by consensus. Interesting interpretation, this was in cvs prior to commit logging :) >From cvs commits I find... cvs version 1.1 of 1996 Nov of htdocs/manual/misc/compat_notes.html starts with... <TITLE>Apache HTTP Server: Compatibility Notes with NCSA's Server</TITLE> I guess for those who've been around as long as you have Roy, 1996 is relatively recent ;-) That's the first use I could discern. 1997 Aug we find + log_printf (server_conf, "Apache HTTP Server version: %s", added to httpd -v text. >>> Do you have a pointer, or are these just more off-list conversations? Various message ID's on the topic 199910 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 200208 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And many others. The gist is always 'well httpd works, but Apache HTTP Server is authoritative' - e.g. the name we own as opposed to the name we inherited. > Yes, but when we set up docs we made a conscious decision that absolutely > no product changes (aside from the docs themselves) would be made on that > list. +1, but I don't think this is on them. > I tried to yesterday, but it is nigh impossible without a single unique > word to search for. Maybe we should just hold another vote. It's hellish to search for, yes. The topic is raised every once in a while and nobody stops to say "Wait, we create the 'httpd' program guys!" So I'd totally disagree with you that it's not consensus. But I'll agree it has changed over the years by lazy consensus. +1 on a vote, I'll reply. Bill
