On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:59:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I ask a stupid question? What have we actually broken since Apache
2.0 went GA? Binary compatibility? How many functions? How many of
those were APR and not Apache?
Sure, both source and binary compatibility
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 September 2002 12:43
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Could you please motivate this? We are interested in seeing
why it should go
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 12:57:05PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 September 2002 12:43
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Could
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth
stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in
and releasing 2.1 seems fair to me, opposed to destabilizing the whole 2.0
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:24:38PM +0200, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth
stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in
and releasing
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 September 2002 00:35
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
same with me.
Please vote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility.
Everyone is
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Ryan
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users, and breaking things all the time won't help :)
Chris Taylor - The guy with the PS2 WebServer
Email: [EMAIL
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[x] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Shane
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users, and breaking things all the time won't help :)
Can I ask a
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Adoption of Apache 2 so far has been low enough that Apache 2 may
still be considered to be in the early adopter phase. Breaking
compatibility is to be avoided when possible, but is allowable
when necessary,
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users, and breaking things all the time won't help :)
Can
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3
community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think
spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more dangerous and
painful.
--
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
users, and breaking things all the
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is that it's important to keep 2.0 stable to attract new
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Why are we suddenly having so many damned votes...
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
My view is
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please vote:
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
So, a vote
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
--
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Please realize that I don't think it's possible to maintain
backwards compatibility due to the relevant Authoritative directives.
So, a vote for 2.0 means it is okay to break backwards compatibility.
Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retaining
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 04:36:58PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
Just as a crazy idea: Since you are retaining all the old APIs, shouldn't
it be possible to distribute the current modules as mod_auth_compat and
mod_auth_dbm_compat that users could activate to get all the old
directives?
Eek.
Please vote:
[X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0.
[ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Breaking backwards compatibility for the 1.3
community and the early 2.0 adopters is painful, but I think
spreading resources towards a 2.1 tree is even more
29 matches
Mail list logo