In 'Re: Comment on index.html (Re: Where to change comments to
configuration files)'
Ross Gardler wrote:
FS Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed
FS your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file
FS and site.xml and what to do about it' when
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
...
Believe me, as I have already suffered consequences from my bad habit of
sending quick mails ;-)
Absolutely, we have all been there (and I still go there unfortunately).
One of my blog entries describes how I *try* and manage the horrible
Ross Gardler wrote:
(about this comment
FS !-- Note: No matter what you configure here, Forrest will always try to
load
FSindex.html when you request http://yourHost/
FS --
)
RG I'm -1 on the current comment as it gives the impression that it *can't*
RG be changed. This is bad. If
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
(about this comment
FS !-- Note: No matter what you configure here, Forrest will always try to
load
FSindex.html when you request http://yourHost/
FS --
)
RG I'm -1 on the current comment as it gives the impression that it *can't*
RG be
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG But that simply is not correct. It *is* configurable as I have written
RG on a number of occasions now.
Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed
your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file
and site.xml and what to do
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:49 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
...
I disagree here. It might have been ok to just leave it before we knew
about the inconsistencies it will create if you don't use index.html.
As far as I am aware the only inconsistency is that the index
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG But that simply is not correct. It *is* configurable as I have written
RG on a number of occasions now.
Sorry, I shouldn't respond to messages one by one. That way I missed
your solution in 'Re: Inkonsistency in implementation of default file
and
