In the grand scheme of things there would be far less drain on your resources
if you were to commit the time required to ensure Cherokee always works even
when certain features are deprecated.
As it stands, my Cherokee is still down and I have no idea how to fix it - this
is a very simple server installation also - just 1 real virtual server that
grants me access to the Cherokee Admin.
I cannot even think about updating my Production Cherokee yet as that server
has many more virtual servers and many more potential points of failure.
Can we please get my problem fixed or shall I remain using 0.99.22 since it is
the last known stable server for my needs ?!?
Ray C. Horn
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is CONFIDENTIAL and intended only for those
to whom this email has been sent by the original sender. You may
purchase the rights to redistribute this email by clicking here.
> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:07:50 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Cherokee] Cannot start Cherokee 0.99.23
>
> Alvaro Lopez Ortega dijo [Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 06:54:23PM +0200]:
> > >I understand you want to encourage users to be aware of features and
> > >prefered habits, but distributions will try to make things transparent
> > >- A user might not even care about which webserver he is running, he
> > >should only care that it runs fine!
> >
> > Cherokee did not use the "Generic Balancer" module in the default
> > configuration. If the module is in use, it's because the user added
> > explicitly a rule.
> >
> > In my understanding, 'Generic Balancer' is a specialized enough
> > module to let the user make the change by hand. I mean, I bet that
> > someone who configured a generic TCP connection balancer in his web
> > server will like to know about its deprecation and replacement
> > module. Besides, the bast majority of the users will not realized of
> > the change just because they don't use the module.
> >
> > I don't know what the best upgrading strategy for Debian is. I guess
> > that if " = mirror$" were matched in the configuration file, the
> > user would be warned at the end of the installation.
>
> Ok — I get your point and recognize its validity. Still, for future
> such cases, *please* try to plan this kind of changes at least a
> couple of releases in advance, throwing deprecation notices at
> startup, instead of just suddenly failing to work.
>
> Still, my point in long-time maintenance holds. I'm not trying to
> threaten in any way, but trying to understand what is the best, least
> stressful way to work on this. Of course, I refuse to ask my users to
> just "use unstable", as unstable is *not* meant for regular users.
>
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Gunnar Wolf • [email protected] • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
