On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We need to standardize on either 9000 or 8192. I prefer 8192, but I know > others prefer 9000. Let's just pick one and change everything. I already changed the brigade buffering code to use 8192. AFAIK, all of the actual buckets code is standardized on 8192. There could be other places in Apache that are still using 9000, of course. +1 for standardizing everything else on 8192 as well. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0... David Reid
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- canonical stuff (was: Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12?... Greg Stein
- Re: canonical stuff (was: Re: apache 2.0.11 - ta... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- unicode file APIs (was: Re: canonical stuff) Greg Stein
- Re: unicode file APIs (was: Re: canonica... dean gaudet
- Re: unicode file APIs (was: Re: cano... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: unicode file APIs (was: Re: cano... Sander van Zoest