At Fri, 12 Jul 2002 03:19:41 +,
Stas Bekman wrote:
> > AFAIK from 2.0.35 on, httpd-2.0 has been considered general
> > availability, which means "stable" in some way. it's not beta anymore.
> >
> >
>http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
>
> Thanks Tatsuhiko, it's just hard to think of Apache not being
Tatsuhiko Miyagawa wrote:
> At Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:26:04 +,
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>>we should continue to support older versions of httpd for as long as
>>>reasonably possible.
>>
>>but what's the reason? why would anybody use an older httpd beta with
>>the latest mod_perl?
>
>
> AFA
At Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:26:04 +,
Stas Bekman wrote:
> > we should continue to support older versions of httpd for as long as
> > reasonably possible.
>
> but what's the reason? why would anybody use an older httpd beta with
> the latest mod_perl?
AFAIK from 2.0.35 on, httpd-2.0 has been co
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>I thought of that, but why do we need to keep it compiling with httpd <
>>2.0.40-dev? aren't people supposed to use 1.99_04 with 2.0.39? or are
>>you talking in the case when 1.99_05 is released and 2.0.40 is not?
>
>
> w
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I thought of that, but why do we need to keep it compiling with httpd <
> 2.0.40-dev? aren't people supposed to use 1.99_04 with 2.0.39? or are
> you talking in the case when 1.99_05 is released and 2.0.40 is not?
we should continue to support older ve
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> i don't think this will compile with httpd < 2.0.40-dev, will it?
> feel free to #ifndef foo #define foo for these macros, or whatever, so
> long as it compiles with released versions of httpd. thanks.
I thought of that, but why do we need to keep it compiling with http
i don't think this will compile with httpd < 2.0.40-dev, will it?
feel free to #ifndef foo #define foo for these macros, or whatever, so
long as it compiles with released versions of httpd. thanks.
On 11 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> stas2002/07/10 23:14:10
>
> Modified:xs
