Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Jorge Schrauwen
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Res wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these products, a big +1 on that proposal.

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Rich Bowen 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 Covener cove...@gmail

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
Res wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen 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 :( > >

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Res
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen 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, however if it is EOL'

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Rich Bowen
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 Bow

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Jorge Schrauwen
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen 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 wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2

OCSP stapling bug #48447

2010-01-05 Thread Dr Stephen Henson
All, just to draw your attention to bug #48447. Without it OCSP stapling doesn't work at all unless a port is explicitly stated in URLs. The fix is trivial and uses the same technique as the regular client certificate OCSP code. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Senior Technical/Cryptography Advis

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Lars Eilebrecht 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 >> beginning of

[VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Noirin Shirley
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Dan Poirier wrote: > Colm MacCárthaigh 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 >

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Lars Eilebrecht
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. A

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Res 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 >> recommen

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Res
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 miss

some observations and thoughs on lingering close of apache2

2010-01-05 Thread Shaojie Liu
all, i have some observations since i worked for a popular months ago. we deployed apache as front end in produciton system, and launched an ads system(pretty large scale, say One billion pv per day), just to find out that: - under the load of up to 150 Hits/second per box, system all running

Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch

2010-01-05 Thread Jeff Trawick
2010/1/4 Colm MacCárthaigh : > 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