Check now. They are up.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gonyou, Austin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> Where the heck is 2.0.18 for download? CVS?
>
> --
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:32 AM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> >
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> > we are already devleoping custom modules for 2.0,
> > ok.. sometimes we get a bit burnt and have to go and change
> > some function names when something gets pulled into the APR,
> >
> > but in my experience the change is to a function name, the concept
> > stays the same, and is a low-risk change.
> >
> > I sugest you grab the 2.0.19 release (when it gets pushed to BETA)
> > and use that as a baseline, subscribe to the CVS mailing list and
> > take a note when you see comments like 'changed function
> > name' or 'moved to APR'
> >
> > ..Ian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Padwa, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:42 AM
> > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think people like him are asking: when is the fiddling
> > > done, and people
> > > > have a program they can start to incorporate into their
> > > operating system
> > > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc? While
> > > we're still working
> > > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and fixing other
> > > big performance
> > > > issues, we're not there yet.
> > >
> > > Another spin on the same question: when do the core
> > > developers (you know who
> > > you are) think that the internal APIs have stabilized enough
> > > so that effort
> > > expended porting home-grown modules won't need to be thrown
> > > away when 2.0
> > > settles down?
> > >
> > > Some of us (I don't have enough data to say "many") can't put
> > > the server
> > > through heavy burn-in without local modules, and can't
> > > justify porting those
> > > to a not-settled set of core APIs.
> > >
> > > Or did I miss the announcement that we had passed this point?
> > > It doesn't
> > > need to be an unbreakable promise, just some guidance.
> > >
> >
>
