Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Upgrading Apache from 2.2 to 2.4

[Marc Schiffbauer]

* Dirkjan Ochtman schrieb am 14.01.16 um 22:41 Uhr:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Display-If-Installed: www-servers/apache
> >
> > Can't that be made  > 2.4 need a news item about something they've already taken care of?
> 
> This makes sense to me, though I imagine it could be annoying if
> people (stupidly, but whatever) postpone reading their news items
> until after the upgrade. Is this a canonical approach? Would like some
> feedback from the experts, here!


Personally I'd not like it, when the news item will disappear right 
after the upgrade. So I'd prefer to not change it.

-Marc

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan
> 

-- 
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317
 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: Upgrading Apache from 2.2 to 2.4

[Daniel Campbell]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 01/13/2016 09:13 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> In part, this is because Apache 2.4 overhauls some often-used parts
> of the configuration; chances that you will have to make some
> changes to your configuration are quite high. On the other hand,
> apache-2.4.18 includes support for HTTP 2.0, so you get that
> (almost) for free!
> 
> Rather than trying to enumerate all the differences here, we'd like
> to point you to the upstream upgrading document, which can be found
> here:

I would change this to:

- ---

With this comes changes to configuration that will likely need
attention.  Upstream's upgrading document outlines any major
configuration changes that may be necessary when upgrading. It can be
found at:

- ---

The reason I suggest cutting it a little is because the HTTP 2.0 mention
comes, and then right after there was the "rather than enumerate the
changes..." part. If HTTP 2.0 is listed among the changes on Apache's
upgrade guide, it's redundant to put it in the news item.

Also, tone. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking this, but generally I think news
should be neutral and absent of "you" and "we", if possible. The primary
impact here is configurations may need changing, and instead of creating
a massive news item with all the changes, we're just referring to
upstream's extant documentation, which is a good call. I just feel the
tone should be a bit more "keep it to the facts". Otherwise, it looks
good to me. :)

- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=lGj6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-dev] News item: Upgrading Apache from 2.2 to 2.4

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

Hi all,

After what feels like ages, we're just about ready to stabilize
apache-2.4. Since this is a major upgrade that in many cases require
configuration changes, we wanted to do a news item. After some
discussion with Lars (Poly-C), here's an initial attempt at a draft.

===

Title: Upgrading Apache from 2.2 to 2.4
Author: Dirkjan Ochtman 
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2016-01-13
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: www-servers/apache

Upstream released the 2.4 version of the Apache HTTPD almost 4 years
ago. Though many users have moved to other HTTP servers, Portage still
has quite a few reverse dependencies, so it took the small team of
maintainers until now to bring Apache 2.4 to stable. In part, this is
because Apache 2.4 overhauls some often-used parts of the
configuration; chances that you will have to make some changes to your
configuration are quite high. On the other hand, apache-2.4.18
includes support for HTTP 2.0, so you get that (almost) for free!

Rather than trying to enumerate all the differences here, we'd like to
point you to the upstream upgrading document, which can be found here:

https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html

For more information on all the new features, start here:

https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html

===

Please use your usual 72 hours of feedback window fruitfully!

Cheers,

Dirkjan