On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> In particular, I don't think our main
> page or download page is currently clear enough about the status of
> 1.3 development. I think we should say something like:
>
> "The Apache HTTP Server version 1.3 is not recommended and is not
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't see why we care, either way.
I don't care if committers continue to maintain 1.3 longer than any
statement we make.
A public statement is about setting expectations of our users.
We all know that 1.3 is dead as a doornail at this point, but many of
our users do n
Joshua Slive wrote:
We have better things to do. Let's do those things and stop worrying
about other people's perceptions.
I agree, with a caveat. I think that we are doing a disservice to our
users if we don't communicate to them the attitude of the people on
this mailing list towards 1.3. I
On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 10/3/07, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't care what the uptake graph says. I don't care what people
outside this project mailing list think, period, about this project.
And if five years from now there are three or more Apa
On 10/3/07, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't care what the uptake graph says. I don't care what people
> outside this project mailing list think, period, about this project.
> And if five years from now there are three or more Apache committers
> that want to release 1.3.x, th
On Oct 3, 2007, at 8:30 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't see why we care, either way.
Could you clarify what we aren't caring about, since your answer was
a bit ambiguous? (Abandon or not, message our users or not, etc)
Why do we need to announce anything? Wh
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't see why we care, either way.
Could you clarify what we aren't caring about, since your answer was
a bit ambiguous? (Abandon or not, message our users or not, etc)
Apart from the fact that you have it's several times when you mean
its, +1
--
Rich Bowen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't see why we care, either way.
Roy
very nice... do include the last paragraph :)
On 10/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Paul Querna wrote:
> >
> > Starting in January 2008, only critical security issues will be fixed in
> > Apache HTTP Server versions 1.3.x or 2.0.x.
>
> Actually that statement is too narro
Paul Querna wrote:
>
> Starting in January 2008, only critical security issues will be fixed in
> Apache HTTP Server versions 1.3.x or 2.0.x.
Actually that statement is too narrow; What if we publish a manifesto such
as this?
"Apache httpd 1.3 to be retired at it's 10th anniversary"
The Apache
11 matches
Mail list logo
