Return-Path: owner-new-httpd Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id HAA05381; Thu, 4 May 1995 07:55:22 -0700 Received: from zuul.dsndata.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA05294; Thu, 4 May 1995 07:54:56 -0700 Received: from dsndata.com by zuul.dsndata.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0s72I5-000A8LC; Thu, 4 May 95 09:54 WET DST Message-Id: To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: votes for 0.6.3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 May 1995 15:31:00 -0000." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 09:54:09 -0500 From: Randy Terbush Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org > > Date: Thu, 4 May 95 12:08 BST > > From: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson) > > > > O91 (makefile tidy) +1 but could it also remove the warning about Solaris > > please? > > > >Hmmm... it's a bit late, but I'd like to elevate my reservations about > >this to a formal -0.5 --- the virtual host stuff seems to be one of > >our big selling points, and I'm not sure it's wise to have it off by > >default. If everyone else votes +1, on the other hand, I can live > >with it... I also would prefer to see VirtualHost _on_ by default. It seems to be a fairly inocuous piece of code and would prefer not to have to have that variable to address when hit with "why doesn't VirtualHost work?" questions. I would vote +1 on O91 if we could remove the #ifdef VIRTUALHOST from the code. On a related note, when do we plan to wrap this release? If it will be a couple of days, I could finalize the other Makefile approach and wrap these changes. Comments?