"jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I could stick with the "last official tarball" since that's an easy piece of
>> thing to download. So, if the latest version is 2.0.18 alpha (don't even
>> know since I use HEAD),
>
> The is 2.0.25 (Thank STATUS!). 20010808 is a date...
I don't know about status, but the latest one is 2.0.18 (Alpha) posted in
June (see http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/)
> I added the #ifdef to Ryan's patch. And I would keep them until Apache-2.0
> releases a beta.
Well, we had betas coming out already, 2.0.16 was a beta, and then the next
releases were labeled alpha again... Release naming of HTTPd AFAICS depends
on the level of "trustedness" of the code in the moment of releasing.
> Apache-2.0 is still changing a lot. (HEAD may broke things like external
> modules or be broken for some hours).
That's good... That's exactly what I want... If a new HEAD of httpd breaks
my module in compilation because I didn't update it, well, then it's my
fault for not keeping up to date with it... And as I said, let's screw
backwards compatibility until the code is labeled as FINAL, or something at
least a little bit closer to it... Right now, the right thing is stick with
HEAD...
> I am normaly testing using HEAD. (that is why I am known on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-))
As anyone else... Everyone uses HEAD...
> We cannot tell a TC user to update his Apache-2.0 to the lastest version each
> time there is a new version, he probably wants to test TC not httpd. But we
> should warn him when he is not using the lastest httpd-2.0 version.
Yes, we should... I believe that if someone wants to try out the WebApp
module for 2.0, he'll have to get the latest version available at the
moment... We're DEVELOPING the sucker, we're not (yet) supporting it...
(well, both projects HTTPd _and_ WebApp)
> So I am -0 for an error message and +1 for a warning.
I'm way +1 on the error message... :)
Pier
