2010/1/4 Colm MacCárthaigh c...@allcosts.net:
Observers of the commits list may have noticed some small cleanups to
the 1.3.x branch earlier today. There are currently a number of
several years-old backport/patch proposals in there too, including two
marked as release show-stoppers (neither
all,
i have some observations since i worked for a popular months ago. we
deployed apache as front end in produciton system, and launched an ads
system(pretty large scale, say One billion pv per day), just to find out
that:
- under the load of up to 150 Hits/second per box, system all
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Apache HTTP Server 1.3.x
* hasn't been actively maintained for years
* is not at all suitable for use on any version of Windows
* has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only
recommended version at present is the latest 2.2.x release
* is
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Res r...@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Apache HTTP Server 1.3.x
* hasn't been actively maintained for years
* is not at all suitable for use on any version of Windows
* has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only
Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'd stay away from the word deprecate. In software, it means that
at some point in the future the user must migrate to a new
interface/feature; formal deprecation is usually announced at the
beginning of the ability to transition. We're years past that for
1.3. Anybody
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
Colm MacCárthaigh c...@allcosts.net writes:
Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally
deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice
to the effect that it will be the final
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'd stay away from the word deprecate. In software, it means that
at some point in the future the user must migrate to a new
interface/feature; formal deprecation is usually announced at the
All,
just to draw your attention to bug #48447. Without it OCSP stapling doesn't work
at all unless a port is explicitly stated in URLs. The fix is trivial and uses
the same technique as the regular client certificate OCSP code.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. Senior Technical/Cryptography
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these
products, a big +1 on that proposal.
Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :(
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Noirin Shirley
On Jan 5, 2010, at 15:31 , Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
+1 (non-binding) There are still to many questions about the 1.3
branch on the support channels IMHO
One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that
most of these folks need to move into the new century.
--
Rich
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these
products, a big +1 on that proposal.
Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :(
I agree,
Res wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these
products, a big +1 on that proposal.
Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :(
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that most of
these folks need to move into the new century.
+1 to EOL for 1.3.x and capturing what that means to casual users in a
formal document.
--
Eric
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Res wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these
products, a big +1
14 matches
Mail list logo
