> Yup. I don't agree with the way Apache has been versioned, either, though > I understand why we delivered both 1.3 and 2.x for a while. Why we haven't > yet gotten rid of 1.3, or why we now ship two versions of 2.x is completely > beyond me. I think it's nuts.
Actually, we only have a single version of 2.x (2.2.8 currently) although as you point out, we still do include 1.3. At one time, that was partly due to something else (printing?) being dependent on it although I don't know if that's still the case. >> Once you've decided on having multiple versions then you really have to >> version everything on the assumption that both versions would be run >> simultaneously. > > Yup; it's that assumption I'm questioning. Although I agree that the versioning of things like the configuration files seems unusual, I think it's the price we need to pay here. That said, what I'd like to see (and this was discussed I think in the earlier Apache upgrade and PHP cases) is limiting the number of outstanding versions to a very small number. dsc
