Hi!
Here comes my point which ist that of an outsider/user.
Yes, breaking compatibily sucks, so I'd say 2.1 seems like a god idea. But from what I
read here it is just now wort the hassle. Why? The installed userbase of 2.0 is not
large enough (with missing PHP/perl support and still evolving
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:10:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
> on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider what we are doing wrong.
> Breaking our users on every bugfix/point release would be a good start.
> Seeing the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >Ian Holsman wrote:
> > >
> > > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > > out to a 2.1 tree
> >
> >++1
>
> So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
> to a
At 04:28 PM 8/30/2002, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > exactly,
> > this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> > if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
> > a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one
At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > out to a 2.1 tree
>
>++1
So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
to a halt (as things were when I got here in the spring
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:35:59PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> EXACTLY.
> branch your code, make it work, merge it back.
> rinse repeat.
> what could be simpler than this ?
> as long as your merge is done quickly (1-2 weeks) and is well-defined
> you should be good to go.
Um, in this case, the co
>I think this is an important fact which then stops many
>users from updating to Apache2 because of missing their favorite
modules...
>All platforms which mainly use binary distributions such as Win32 and
Netware are affected...
As we are using Apache 2.x on Win32 and Linux I'm just affected by
Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>
>>exactly,
>>this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
>>if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
>>a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
>
>
> In preference t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
> development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to
> start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin
Why not do a tiny temporary branch just for t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> exactly,
> this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
> a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In preference to doing that, just create a tempo
++1.
Ryan
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > out to a 2.1 tree
> >
>
> ++1
>
>
--
___
Ryan Bloom
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> out to a 2.1 tree
>
++1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> out to a 2.1 tree
Agreed.
--Cliff
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
>>>in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
>>>be fixed (and I believe the patches we alr
> Seems that everyone is killing his brains out, but we still have only
> 6500 upgrades from 1.3.x. One of them is the guy from Germany that is
> running 2.0.18 for more than a year.
sure; and this will probably never change till the Apache2 APIs become somewhat more
stabilized.
What I mean is th
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> >I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
> >in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
> >be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start the
> >proc
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>
>>No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
>>people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
>>tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
> people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
> tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to
> happen. I see
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:43:33AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same
> version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 ("it's not
> portable"). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
> anything other than
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 2.0/2.1 split?
>
> I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
> o
At 10:43 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas,
> guys.
> > If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> > way]
> > then
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas, guys.
> If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> way]
> then they can be backported to 2.0.
I dislike backporting thing
22 matches
Mail list logo
