David Reid wrote:
> Seems like a plan.
>
> Do we then migrate from 2.0 to 2.2 for our *stable* tree? Some extra
> clarification might be nice...
Well, as Cliff pointed out, we would start issuing releases under the 2.1
moniker. Then, when we're all feeling warm and fuzzy about 2.1, we'll
call it
--On Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:27 PM +0100 Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AIUI 2.1 is supposed to be a minimal change from 2.0. This proposal
will break (an unknown number of) 2.0 modules. Last time I looked,
No one ever said 2.2 is supposed to be a minimal change. =)
The point of making
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 12:35, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> The point of making a number of 2.1 releases before 2.2 is to allow time for
> module writers to adjust to the new API in whatever way they need to. IMHO,
> this was our mistake last time - we released a 2.0 GA release before we had
> the
Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Sorry, the mpm_common.c.diff was empty.
>
>
>
>
> --- mpm_common.c 2003-08-31 06:06:25.0 -0300
> +++ mpm_common_old.c 2003-08-31 05:57:14.0 -0300
> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@
>
>
Joshua Slive wrote:
I think we've done pretty-much all we can. I wouldn't mind putting a
little note on the httpd.apache.org homepage saying "Have you secured your
proxy?" and point to the correct docs.
What about sending a warning message to stderr/error_log upon startup if
the proxy is not
Well, as Cliff pointed out, we would start issuing releases under the 2.1
moniker. Then, when we're all feeling warm and fuzzy about 2.1, we'll
call it 2.2, and open APACHE_2_2_BRANCH. HEAD would then become 2.3.
APACHE_2_0_BRANCH would still be open.
Before 2.2 is even considered shouldn't all
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 13:40:23 -0700 Stas Bekman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before 2.2 is even considered shouldn't all the outstanding design issues
be fixed first? e.g. there are at least several design problems with
filters.
Aren't you just talking about the fact that it's not a dou
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 13:40:23 -0700 Stas Bekman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before 2.2 is even considered shouldn't all the outstanding design issues
be fixed first? e.g. there are at least several design problems with
filters.
Aren't you just talking about t
