Hallo Melvyn, Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 9:55:31 AM, you wrote:
> At 08:43 29-10-2002, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: >> > The aspect people complaining about is more a version thingie, e.g. >> > they try to set up php 4.2.3 with apache 2.0.43 and this could not >> > succeed. Is it really necessary to document that apache 2.03x works >> > only with php 4.2.x1, php4.2.x2 and apache 2.04x only with php4.2y1 >> > or php4.2.y2? It should be clearly mentioned, that the support for >> > apache2 isn't production stable ;-) >> >>I think, it would be nice to add information to one place, the documentation >>about Apache 2 support. >> >> 1. It's not production ready > Ah yes - but that will contradict greatly, to "the best version yet" marketing > trick the Apache Group is advertising on their front page. > We can mention it to users, in the bug db etc. But officially documenting, that > Apache 2 is really a beta product, doesn't really express consistency, between > the "family". I thought it more from another point of view: the support for apache2 in php is not production stable ,e.g. the sapi in php :-) Maybe this is due to the fact (?) that apache2 is still beta (I really don't know) but form the php-side point of view, php-versions are not production stable in conjunction with apache2. As Derick said, I don't think this will hurt someone of the apachegroup. [...] but besides this, it would be kind, if just someone could provide some infos from the php-side, like the *.exe names one windows ;-) Friedhelm -- PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
