Based on this thread, I'll going to commit an EOL notice later today
(1.3.x is still CTR) and language nits and so on can be fixed with
patches/commits as appropriate, and if anyone feels strongly they can
revert :-)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Jorge Schrauwen
jorge.schrau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
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
On Jan 6, 2010, at 06:22 , Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
If one of the goals here is to reduce the support nuisance and help
folk out, should we also ask the Apache PR team for help? I'm sure
they'd be willing to help publicise the change After 15 years of
community support ... mumble mumble ...
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
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* has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only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* has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only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
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
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 actually stopped the show,
when last we had a
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 release, and that in future
we'll be distributing security updates by
17 matches
Mail list logo
