Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Although dropping back to waka/http is an other options but I think
some users will be dissapointed.
Why run 4 different daemons while one will do? (ok I can think of a
lot of reasons but I can think of some no to do it either.)
Because then you'll be like inetd,
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
.
Once I move mod_request.h from includes to modules/filters it all works
fine (after make extraclean; buildconf of course). The reason is that the
generator for exports.c picks up the symbols from mod_request.h which
is IMHO wrong as it is not statically compiled into
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at
ApacheCon EU:
http://roy.gbiv.com/talks/200804_Apache3_ApacheCon.pdf
heh, good thing I managed to get the Internet connection to work long
enough
for the upload.
The only reply I
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and
discussed with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based
releases.
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed
with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based
releases.
My proposal is for every 2
Just out of curiosity... will 3.0 still be a fresh start or will the
core of 2.3 be used?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
I would like to go for 3 month, so four times per year or once each
quarter.
I think it's a good idea -
According to Paul:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
+1 on the concept, but in my opinion 2 month is too short.
3-4 month would be better.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Just out of curiosity... will 3.0 still be a fresh start or will the
core of 2.3 be used?
My slides are intended to be motivational, not definitional.
The only thing known about 3.0 is that it won't be compatible with 2.x.
Other than that
On Apr 13, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
According to Paul:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
+1 on the concept, but in my opinion 2 month is too short.
3-4 month would be better.
If two months is too
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed with a
few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releases.
Sounds sane. Even though there might only be small bugfixes
On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Just out of curiosity... will 3.0 still be a fresh start or will the
core of 2.3 be used?
Well, the existing code is a server framework that runs millions of
websites and has received a lot of battle-testing. I don't see us not
taking
Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU:
http://roy.gbiv.com/talks/200804_Apache3_ApacheCon.pdf
I've got a couple of naive questions about 3.
My apologies.. but i'm only looking at the slides, not the speech itself.
What will the role of
13 matches
Mail list logo
