Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds >> for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, >> but maybe also providing easily

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds > for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, > but maybe also providing easily

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds > for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, > but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we > do a release, as a "service" to the community might

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Jan 3, 2017 07:11, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we do a release, as a "service" to the

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we do a release, as a "service" to the community might make a lot of sense.

RE: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

project? Rick Houser Web Administration > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Ruggeri [mailto:drugg...@primary.net] > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:12 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25] > > On 12/28/2016 6:40

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On 12/28/2016 6:40 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > > wrote: > > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It wasn't the paste that was the problem, but the inability > of other email clients to determine from your email what > parts/sections are quoted from *previous* emails. Yann pointed me in the right direction, I believe

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

It wasn't the paste that was the problem, but the inability of other email clients to determine from your email what parts/sections are quoted from *previous* emails. > On Dec 28, 2016, at 5:49 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Talk to Google and the OpenOffice

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> Am 29.12.2016 um 01:40 schrieb Yehuda Katz : > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate directly from source, and others > use a non-OS distribution. > I think a

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Dec 28, 2016 10:34, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: Specific Revision Of all Most Recent Of m.m Of all Apache/1.3.x 391898 3.33% 1.3.42 42392 10.82% 0.36% Apache/2.0.x 551117 4.68% 2.0.64 36944 6.70% 0.31% Apache/2.2.x 7129391 60.49% 2.2.31 1332448 18.78% 11.31% Apache/2.4.x

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Hi Jim, Talk to Google and the OpenOffice Team, that was a paste from OpenOffice Calc. I'll be happy to start summarizing as a shared Google sheet. Cheers, Bill On Dec 28, 2016 14:22, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't look like it) but could you fix your Email client? It's impossible to reply and have the quoted parts parsed out correctly. I think it's to do w/ your messages being RTF or something. Thx! Included is an example of how a Reply

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:46:51 -0600): >On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >> Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos >> servers I am running Directadmin. DA always offers to upgrade to

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4. > If not moved yet, that example wouldn't be helpful, it reinforces my point four years later. But EA itself seems to track pretty closely to the most

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50 > -0600): > >But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS > >users are all running what they were handed from their > >OS distribution.

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4. So the idea that supplemental (ie: 2.4.x->2.4.y) patches don't have the reach or range of larger ones (2.4.x->2.6/3.0) isn't quite accurate. IMO, people who are comfortable with "whatever the OS provides" aren't the ones we are talking

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50 -0600): >But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS >users are all running what they were handed from their >OS distribution. Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos servers I am

The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > As I have also stated, my personal belief is that > 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we > "turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will > stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track. This is where I think we