--On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:19 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which
is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom?
Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal in
2.1, or
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal
in 2.1, or at the very least split them off to an 'unmaintained'
distribution? We can leave them there, but boot them out of our 'core'
distribution. 2.0 saw the introduction of mod_dav and
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is
Mads Toftum wrote:
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is
unmaintained - Andre has been doing a great job on it and there's a fairly
large userbase too.
If you really wan't to take the
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:12 PM +0200 Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin
Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time
to
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:25 PM +0200 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And if something is broken, wrong, bad code, incomplete, then submit
some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, so that
different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code.
No,
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Don't kill module A, kill module B instead. I suggest we don't kill
anything which has evidence of being useful.
Agreed - I just felt a bit provoked by mod_rewrite always being the target
(and hadn't seen justins patch to
